The United Nations Disarm Treaty

Today I awoke to some great headlines on the forums.  This headline reached some of my favorite forums faster than places like Drudge Report, CNN, and Fox News, etc...  Headline:

U.S. backs away from supporting global arms trade treaty

 

"This is GREAT" I thought to myself, lying in bed on my iPhone reading the news of the world that passed me by in my sleep.  I knew that The Obama Administration was going to shy away from this bill, but I never thought they'd back away completely.  This was amazing...almost as shocking to me as The House voting in overwhelming support for a bill written by none other than the greatest politician of our time, Ron Paul, to Audit The Fed.

Eagerly I began reading through the article, ready for the juicy details of how it went down, and how those imbeciles at the United Nations would handle it.  But, to my ultimate dismay, as I neared the end of the article, I read this:

"The United States told delegates that it did not have "core" objections to the draft treaty under consideration, but that it needed more time."

 

 Amazing.  I think it's safe to say that we've all heard the expression "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" ... my oh my how fitting.

So, The Obama Administration does not disagree with the Disarm Treaty, but wants to postpone signing it...maybe until AFTER the election?  Apparently so, since it's a 6 month postponement that has been requested.

Now, of course, this speculation is all over the airwaves, i'm not the first to think about it, though it was the first thing that entered my mind upon reading the above quoted statement.

And, of course, the opposition blasts that ideal and calls it more delusional paranoia.  Really?  Well, the definition is paranoia is:

Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

  So in order for their statements to technically be true, there'd have to be no reason for any of us to think that Obama is merely delaying.  It'd have to be completely conjured in our heads having no event prior to today to lead us to believe he'd ever delay anything in favor of re-election, right?  Right.  Good, I'm glad we agree.  So let's listen to this

Huh.  Well, I guess so much for the "you're just paranoid" routine.  Could we be WRONG?  Yes.  Certainly.  That's possible.  It's possible that we could be misinterpreting Obama's request for a 6 month waiting period.  It's possible that we could be misinterpreting his statement of "We don't disagree with the treaty, we just need more time".  Sure, that's possible.  Hell, just about anything is possible these days, however...given the history of the Obama Administration to say one thing and do another, I'm leaning towards the "We're not paranoid" angle.

But really, we could debate the true intentions of Obama until the cows come home.  Maybe he has another reason for waiting until after the Election to sign the treaty?  Maybe.  So, until such a time, provided he actually does get re-elected, it's sort of a moot point.

Our time is better spent seeing what's in the Treaty its self, and trying to figure out why many of us subscribe to the idea that Obama is afraid of voting booth reprisals and is choosing to wait until after the election with the hopes of getting re-elected.

So, let's take a look at the treaty its self

Holy shit, that's a lot to read!  Well, it has to be when writing law.  You have to define everything, define everyone, close off any loopholes possible, etc, etc...the idea of something like this is to leave no wiggle room for someone to come along, go against the spirit of the treaty, but still stay within the legal confines of said treaty (aka exploit a loophole)

But it is with this all in mind that most of us have taken up arms against this treaty, and why I choose to call it the "Disarm Treaty" ... because that's exactly what it CAN BE used for.  "How?" you might be asking...well, I'll show you, from the treaty its self:

It empowers Dictatorships that belong to the United Nations
All members of the United Nations are treated equally where treaties are concerned.  So in the case of this Treaty, country's with controversial dictators like Iran and Venezuela will have arms restrictions lifted to become level with trusted country's like Japan, for obvious reasons, this is a bad idea.

The United Nations has already been criticized for appointing Iran to a key role in the talks, even as Tehran stands accused by the UN of arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody crackdown on rebels...and who in their right minds would trust Iran to decide what is best for the rest of us?


Shady Language
This treaty uses a lot of loose language and fails to tie up many ends, leaving its contents to be subject to interpretation.  What do I mean by that?  Well, before we take a look at that, let's get 3 things out of the way

1.) None of us are saying that we believe the UN can march into our living rooms and take our guns.  That's never been said, suggested, thought, or hinted at.  No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a threat to the Second Amendment, then it can only come directly from The United States Government.

2.) The United States is one of the few nations in the world that has something like The Second Amendment.

3.) The United Nations, and many of its members, are vehemently against the idea of Civilians being allowed to legally possess firearms.

 So what about that "Shady Language"  Well, lets look

Transfer requirements.  Whether by design, or sheer abject stupidity, the treaty fails to have a concise definition for what it considers to be a transfer of firearms.  For example, the Treaty states that it will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then defines international transfers as the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.

Does this mean that domestic transfers count as international and are then subject to the treaty's provisions?  There is other speculation to the possibility of the creation of a UN based global gun registry.

So, as I said, nobody thinks this treaty is designed to move into your home, directly, and grab your guns, but with the loose language, combined with leadership from country's like Iran, and the known history of the disdain for Civilian Ownership by the United Nations, it's easy to see how this shady language could be used in the future to circumvent the Second Amendment...in other words, if this Treaty is signed and ratified, then further own down the road, the Second Amendment may come in 2nd place in order to comply with the demands of the treaty its self.  This chance of this happening can never be allowed to see the light of day.


Many Obama supporters keep reminding us all that in order for a treaty to be ratified, it must pass with a 2/3's approval from The Senate...they keep spouting this off as if it's the end-all answer to the problem.  But it's not.  Nobody is arguing that this part isn't true.  It does take 2/3's majority to pass it.  That doesn't mean it can't be passed!  Certainly, the climate in the Senate right now means there's no way the Senate would ever vote in such a manner...but if history has shown us anything, it's that those in power are quick to change when they have something to lose.

For now, however, we have a few leaders in the Government who are willing to stand up to such unneeded disarmament of American Citizens.  Leaders like Jerry Moran who introduced S.2205.IS dubbed The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act.  This Act seeks to block funding thereby preventing the Obama Administration from negotiating ANY Arms Trade Treaty that violates the Second Amendment (Disarming American Citizens)

 

 Mr. Moran argued that any treaty that allows international bodies to regulate civilian firearms could end up letting those institutions "restrict the lawful and private ownership of firearms in our country."  The Senate may not appear likely to support such a mesure, but good Americans like Mr. Moran were smart enough to plan ahead and introduce legislation in attempts to forbid the Obama Administration from negotiating with our rights.

As we approach the end of this post, I am borrowing a passage from The Heritage Foundation (already cited above)

 In 2010, Mexico, speaking for eight other Central and South American nations, stated its view that “internal transfers which...might have an impact on other States should also be part of an ATT.” Since any firearm transfer—meaning any change in the ownership of a firearm—might conceivably somehow affect another nation, an ATT based on this provision would appear to require far-reaching domestic controls.

The draft paper is narrower and nominally applies only to “international arms transfers,” but in its Annex A, it defines such transfers as including “transport” across national territory, and notes that states should “monitor and control” arms in transit. It also requires nations to “enforce domestically the obligations of this treaty” by prohibiting the unauthorized “transfer of arms from any location” under its control. If applied to hunting and sporting weapons, this could be a major expansion of federal firearms controls.
Finally, the draft paper requires that nations “shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users.” This clause can be interpreted in many ways.

The U.S. cannot prevent the diversion of arms that have already been exported and have therefore left its jurisdiction. This requirement therefore appears to create an obligation to impose undefined but extensive internal controls, as these controls are supposed to include “all appropriate measures.”

So to put it in the simplest terms, lets close this argument with this idea.

Let's pretend you live in a bad neighborhood.  One known for all kinds of crime.  Your neighbors house was broken into last week, and Larry, down the street, shot at 2 intruders last night, scaring them off, but they still got away.  The police hold City Watches where all of your neighborhood is invited, and they give you tips and updates on the crime in your area...yes, this are THAT bad.

So, when you leave for work in the morning, do you lock your doors?  Of course!  Why risk it, right?  Chances are that a criminal will not seek out YOUR house...you don't stand out, you blend in perfectly to the other dozens of houses in the area and you have a house alarm with your ADT sticker in the window...but, you still lock your door anyways, right?  Why risk it?

This UN treaty is no different.  To sign it, as a nation, we are leaving our doors unlocked in a bad neighborhood and trusting that someone in the future won't break in and rob us blind.