Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Drayno

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

83 posts in this topic

I found the story through Infowars, but here's a link to the senate's government website.

http://www.foreign.s...2e-159a0292580f

In May 130 members of Congress told Obama and Kerry to refuse signing the treaty.

Some view it as an attempt to subvert the Second Amendment to an international legal basis.

http://www.thenewame...tion-regulation

Article 11 of conference president Peter Woolcott’s latest draft proposal of the ATT requires state parties to “maintain national records” of the small arms located within their national borders.

Section 3 of Article 11 sets out the data these registries should contain. “Each state party is encouraged to include in those records the quantity, value, model/type” of small arms owned in the nation, as well as the name of the “end user.”

This list will be kept for 10 years, according to another section of Article 11.

The prospect of such a registration being carried out in the United States should offend every American who believes that the right to keep and bear arms is crucial to the defense of all other rights, and that the forced disclosure to the federal government (or any local government acting under the authority of the federal government) of the amount and type of weapons one owns is the first step toward banning of personal ownership of firearms.

It's a bit troublesome that Kerry is disregarding Congress and the Senate.

Very troublesome.. Especially since this treaty encourages registration.

Here is the topic story bellow with the letter of Senator Bob Corker attached in spoilers.

WASHINGTON – Asserting the Senate’s constitutional role on treaties, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a letter today warned the Obama administration against taking any action to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty without Senate advice and consent.

“The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be fundamentally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, law, and practice,” said Corker.

Full text of the letter is included below and in the attached document.

Dear President Obama,

It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States. The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.

Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Corker

Ranking Member

We need to pay close attention to this.

Edited by Hatake Kakashi
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...forced disclosure to the federal government (or any local government acting under the authority of the federal government) of the amount and type of weapons one owns is the first step toward banning of personal ownership of firearms

How, except in the fevered mind of the conspiracy theorist, does the latter necessarily follow from the former?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean they'll stop sending guns to terrorists and Mexican drug cartels??

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/font][/color][/size]

How, except in the fevered mind of the conspiracy theorist, does the latter necessarily follow from the former?

I believe the thinking goes like this: If they don't know who has guns then they can't confiscate them. If they do know then they can. So it doesn't necessarily follow but it could.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article here:

As a result, the old requirement not to violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty has become a way to evade the need for Senate ratification. And in the case of the Arms Trade Treaty, the problem is even worse. The administration will argue that it already has all the powers it needs to enforce the treaty.

In the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Arms Export Control Act, Congress gave the Executive Branch the power to control both the import and export of firearms – indeed, of weapons of all kinds. This power is virtually unfettered. All the president has to do is to assert that a particular firearm is not suitable for “sporting” purposes and, under the 1968 Act, he can ban its import.

We have recently seen an example of this with the executive actions banning the import of Korean War vintage M1 Garand rifles, which the White House justified as a gun control measure. And since many U.S. gun manufacturers rely on imported parts and components, or financing and insurance from abroad, the Treaty also gives other countries new opportunities to affect the U.S. firearms market.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/25/un-arms-treaty-will-be-menace-to-us-for-years-to-come/

Edited by Burt Gummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the thinking goes like this: If they don't know who has guns then they can't confiscate them. If they do know then they can. So it doesn't necessarily follow but it could.

Yes, but the language used indicates the grabbing of the guns will (not can) follow the registering. Do the people really believe this is what will eventuate, or is this simply another excuse to roll out the partisan rhetoric and have a dig at "the other side" (or, in this case, the 'non-'Mercans') ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the language used indicates the grabbing of the guns will (not can) follow the registering. Do the people really believe this is what will eventuate, or is this simply another excuse to roll out the partisan rhetoric and have a dig at "the other side" (or, in this case, the 'non-'Mercans') ?

I am afraid it is a good exercise in cultivating a paranoia.

It is astonishing when the formerly freest country on earth gets converted into a prison of imaginary limitations. Maybe the dictators are right and man is not supposed to be free :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the language used indicates the grabbing of the guns will (not can) follow the registering. Do the people really believe this is what will eventuate, or is this simply another excuse to roll out the partisan rhetoric and have a dig at "the other side" (or, in this case, the 'non-'Mercans') ?

You might want to see this:

According to The Washington Post, the Obama administration is considering a “national database” of all firearms in the United States to “track the movement and sale of weapons.” If such a database comes to fruition the database will lead to confiscation.

Last year Canada ended its national long gun registry, a national database of every rifle and shotgun in the country that was supposed to help police track the movement of and sale of weapons. When it was introduced twenty years ago critics said the registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation, a criticism dismissed as ridiculous, yet that’s what happened and more right up until its dismantling.

As recently as last winter law abiding gun owners who had complied with the registry were having their rifles confiscated. In late 2011 hundreds if not thousands of people who had legally purchased the Armi Jager AP80, a .22 calibre variant of the AK47, were informed that their rifles had been deemed illegal and must be surrendered .

“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” read the letter sent by the Canadian Firearms Centre.

The reason for the need to surrender what had been legal firearms was simply cosmetic, the AP 80 looked too similar to the AK47. There were no interchangeable parts between the two rifles, the rifles used vastly different ammunition, had vastly different uses but they looked the same.

Link: http://www.theblaze....o-confiscation/

Read a History Book, Gun Registration Leads to Gun Confiscation

​Link: http://politicalcraz...un#.UkNX6jAo5oM

Shindler%2527s.jpg

154132_459308937474315_439047267_n.jpg

Edited by Burt Gummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the language used indicates the grabbing of the guns will (not can) follow the registering. Do the people really believe this is what will eventuate, or is this simply another excuse to roll out the partisan rhetoric and have a dig at "the other side" (or, in this case, the 'non-'Mercans') ?

It's fair to believe it's a over-hyped belief or paranoia.

However, the language in the Second Amendment expresses absolute seriousness: 'Shall not be infringed'...

Historically speaking, the Second Amendment was put in place in regards to the Framer's detailed understanding of political history.

That paranoia is justified because that same paranoia is historically backed.

If all the bodies of the people killed in the 20th century by government alone were put in a line from head to toe, their bodies would circle the Earth six times.

How many times in history has government gone rogue against its own population?

How are we so infallible? How are we above history? Have we learned nothing?

Now that it's the 21st century and we see what happens with Communism off paper; gun-confiscation, executions of political opponents, I'll be paranoid.

Happily paranoid at that.

Edited by Hatake Kakashi
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burt,

...the Obama administration is considering a “national database” of all firearms in the United States to “track the movement and sale of weapons.” If such a database comes to fruition the database will lead to confiscation.

What The Blaze doesn't tell you, because it wants to stoke the paranoia, is the confiscation will be of the illegal weapons that people mistakenly register. People who unknowingly buy stolen guns, etc.

There is no basis for the claim a national firearms register will lead to the confiscation of all legal privately-owned weapons unless the claimant is paranoid or wishes to promote a theme of paranoia. And if the American public truly believes their Govt will enact confiscation, are actively planning to do so, why the hell are the American public sitting on their backsides posting these views on the internet instead of actually doing something about it?

The rest of your post is a one-eyed view of gun control which ignores the effective gun control enacted in peaceful, democratic nations. It is an excellent example of the American's paranoia (fed by a partisan media) regarding the subject of gun control.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burt,

[/font][/color]

What The Blaze doesn't tell you, because it wants to stoke the paranoia, is the confiscation will be of the illegal weapons that people mistakenly register. People who unknowingly buy stolen guns, etc.

There is no basis for the claim a national firearms register will lead to the confiscation of all legal privately-owned weapons unless the claimant is paranoid or wishes to promote a theme of paranoia. And if the American public truly believes their Govt will enact confiscation, are actively planning to do so, why the hell are the American public sitting on their backsides posting these views on the internet instead of actually doing something about it?

The rest of your post is a one-eyed view of gun control which ignores the effective gun control enacted in peaceful, democratic nations. It is an excellent example of the American's paranoia (fed by a partisan media) regarding the subject of gun control.

You mean the effective gun control in the UK where there's a total gun ban, and total crime rates are through the roof?

Yeah, you don't worry about guns, but how many people are robbed and killed by knives? Lots.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the effective gun control in the UK where there's a total gun ban, and total crime rates are through the roof?

Yeah, you don't worry about guns, but how many people are robbed and killed by knives? Lots.

Far less than you think. The figures from the USDoJ from 2009 state that 22% of the violent crimes in the US involved the use of weapons. The UK's ONS (Office of National Statistics) has the percentage of violent crimes involving weapons as 22% of violent crimes, for period 2011-12.

More from the ONS:

  • Violent and sexual crime covers a range of offence types. For example, violence spans minor assaults, such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious assault and murder. Sexual assault covers offences from indecent exposure to rape. In half of incidents identified by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) (50%) and offences recorded by the police (56%), the violence resulted in no physical injury to the victim.
  • The 2011/12 CSEW shows that there were 2.1 million violent incidents in England and Wales with 3% of adults victimised. The number of violent incidents has halved from its peak in 1995 when the survey estimated over 4.2 million violent incidents.
  • Focusing on the most serious violence, the number of homicides currently recorded by the police has increased from 1961 to 2002/03, and shown a generally downward trend since. The number currently recorded for 2011/12 (540) is the lowest since 1989 (521).
  • Offences involving the use of firearms peaked later than overall violent crime with 24,094 offences being recorded by the police in 2003/04. Since then the number of such offences has fallen by 60% to 9,555 recorded offences in 2011/12. The current 16% fall between 2010/11 and 2011/12 is the eighth consecutive annual decrease in firearm offences.

source

More from the USDoJ:

"Violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault."

In 2010 the DoJ recorded 4,935,980 'victimisations' (incidents of violent crime).

source

Note: The relative violent crime rates in the UK are made using criteria for "violent crime" that would not constitute "violent crime" according to the US DoJ, so making a direct comparison of the respective rates of violent crime is not very meaningful, although estimates suggest there is no significant differences in violent crimes rates between the UK and the US when equivalent crimes are considered.

So, not only is it a lie that UK "violent crime rates are through the roof", but the equal percentages of violent crimes involving weapons between the UK and US suggests that gun-control does not lower the rate of violent crimes involving weapons (criminals just use different weapons), but it does reduce the rate at which those crimes lead to homicide - which is the point of gun-control.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far less than you think. The figures from the USDoJ from 2009 state that 22% of the violent crimes in the US involved the use of weapons. The UK's ONS (Office of National Statistics) has the percentage of violent crimes involving weapons as 22% of violent crimes, for period 2011-12.

More from the ONS:

  • Violent and sexual crime covers a range of offence types. For example, violence spans minor assaults, such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious assault and murder. Sexual assault covers offences from indecent exposure to rape. In half of incidents identified by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) (50%) and offences recorded by the police (56%), the violence resulted in no physical injury to the victim.
  • The 2011/12 CSEW shows that there were 2.1 million violent incidents in England and Wales with 3% of adults victimised. The number of violent incidents has halved from its peak in 1995 when the survey estimated over 4.2 million violent incidents.
  • Focusing on the most serious violence, the number of homicides currently recorded by the police has increased from 1961 to 2002/03, and shown a generally downward trend since. The number currently recorded for 2011/12 (540) is the lowest since 1989 (521).
  • Offences involving the use of firearms peaked later than overall violent crime with 24,094 offences being recorded by the police in 2003/04. Since then the number of such offences has fallen by 60% to 9,555 recorded offences in 2011/12. The current 16% fall between 2010/11 and 2011/12 is the eighth consecutive annual decrease in firearm offences.

source

More from the USDoJ:

"Violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault."

In 2010 the DoJ recorded 4,935,980 'victimisations' (incidents of violent crime).

source

Note: The relative violent crime rates in the UK are made using criteria for "violent crime" that would not constitute "violent crime" according to the US DoJ, so making a direct comparison of the respective rates of violent crime is not very meaningful, although estimates suggest there is no significant differences in violent crimes rates between the UK and the US when equivalent crimes are considered.

So, not only is it a lie that UK "violent crime rates are through the roof", but the equal percentages of violent crimes involving weapons between the UK and US suggests that gun-control does not lower the rate of violent crimes involving weapons (criminals just use different weapons), but it does reduce the rate at which those crimes lead to homicide - which is the point of gun-control.

fffui_zpseaeb7208.jpg

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This registration better not cost me any money. .. what rifle?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read a History Book, Gun Registration Leads to Gun Confiscation

​Link: http://politicalcraz...un#.UkNX6jAo5oM

Except in Australia, where we have strict gun control laws, but don't go about confiscating weapons - unless they're criminals.

We routinely buy-back weapons, or have gun (and knife) amnesties at the cop-shops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a slippery slope argument and unless there is some evidence to back it up it's just meaningless paranoia. Australia banned guns almost two decades ago and we werent slaughtered by our govt. Democracies aren't one piece of legislation from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a slippery slope argument and unless there is some evidence to back it up it's just meaningless paranoia. Australia banned guns almost two decades ago and we werent slaughtered by our govt. Democracies aren't one piece of legislation from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

No, they're several - and we're being assured by some posters here that several laws HAVE been placed on the books that pushes the US down that road.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fffui_zpseaeb7208.jpg

Question 1: What are the criteria used for definition of "crime" by the respective agencies collecting the data?

Question 2: Is the crime rate the national crime rate, or the Federal crime rate (i.e. the number of Federal crimes committed)?

Question 3: How is overall crime rate at all related to the issue of gun-control, which is about reducing fatalities not reducing crime?

Pro-gun advocates have argued the United Kingdom is a perfect example of how ineffective gun laws are on crime. Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the world, the U.K. has a far higher violent crime rate than the U.S.

However, a closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K. The reason for the U.K.’s higher violent crime rate is their far broader definition of a “violent” crime.

An oft-cited source for the argument that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than the U.K. is a 2009 article in the Daily Mail, an English tabloid. The story put the U.K. at the top of a so-called “League of Shame” for its violence.

The statistics in that article were compiled by Britain’s Conservative Party and drawn from different reports by the United Nations and the European Commission. They do not appear to be part of an official study, and specific reports used by the U.N. and E.C. were not named.

Citing various crime statistics, the article claims the U.K. was the most violent country in the EU. However, that title was not given by the EU or U.N.

Rather, it was Britain’s Conservative Party that named Britain “the most violent in the EU” on a day when one of its members was scheduled to give a speech on crime.

source

So, the figures quoted by pro-gun activists targetting Britain as "the perfect example of why gun-control doesn't work", come from a UK political Party's manipulation of the data to make their speech on crime seem more favourable - in other words it's nothing but political propaganda not backed up by reputable sources of information.

Any more red-herrings or strawmen to throw at the debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burt,

[/font][/color]

What The Blaze doesn't tell you, because it wants to stoke the paranoia, is the confiscation will be of the illegal weapons that people mistakenly register. People who unknowingly buy stolen guns, etc.

There is no basis for the claim a national firearms register will lead to the confiscation of all legal privately-owned weapons unless the claimant is paranoid or wishes to promote a theme of paranoia. And if the American public truly believes their Govt will enact confiscation, are actively planning to do so, why the hell are the American public sitting on their backsides posting these views on the internet instead of actually doing something about it?

The rest of your post is a one-eyed view of gun control which ignores the effective gun control enacted in peaceful, democratic nations. It is an excellent example of the American's paranoia (fed by a partisan media) regarding the subject of gun control.

Historicaly there is no reason what so ever to believe it wont lead to confiscation. It has 99% of the time. Just cause someone is paranoid, doesnt mean they arent out to get you. Especialy when several of our dear leaders in the past have expressed a will to fullly disarm us. So basicaly forget you Leo. Im not registering jack. And they can take it from my cold dead hands.

Edited by preacherman76
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historicaly there is no reason what so ever to believe it wont lead to confiscation. It has 99% of the time. Just cause someone is paranoid, doesnt mean they arent out to get you. Especialy when several of our dear leaders in the past have expressed a will to fullly disarm us. So basicaly forget you Leo. Im not registering jack. And they can take it from my cold dead hands.

If the American people ever come to their senses and defeat the gun industry, the first thing will be a purchase offer, with fair prices. Then there will be confiscation and arrest. Your last sentence is just silly,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read today that the state of Ohio has 1100 gun deaths annually. How long must this continue? How many lives did guns save?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a slippery slope argument and unless there is some evidence to back it up it's just meaningless paranoia. Australia banned guns almost two decades ago and we werent slaughtered by our govt. Democracies aren't one piece of legislation from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Has Australia made laws where they can put you in prison the rest of your life with no charges, or due process? Have they granted themselfs the right to kill who ever they want when ever they want? Cause here in the land of the free, thats the new norm.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the American people ever come to their senses and defeat the gun industry, the first thing will be a purchase offer, with fair prices. Then there will be confiscation and arrest. Your last sentence is just silly,

Oh now I feel better. At least when they rob me of liberty, I will get some cash. LOL forget you. There are about a couple million of us at least who feel very strongly about my last sentence. So what you consider silly, will become a very serious situation come that day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read today that the state of Ohio has 1100 gun deaths annually. How long must this continue? How many lives did guns save?

There where 10 times more car accident deaths in the same area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh now I feel better. At least when they rob me of liberty, I will get some cash. LOL forget you. There are about a couple million of us at least who feel very strongly about my last sentence. So what you consider silly, will become a very serious situation come that day.

Sounds like you are not loyal but a traitor to your country if you don't agree with it. I believe in obeying the law and making changes legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.