NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Dan W on July 07, 2011, 07:32:26 PM
-
From the NRA's Wayne Lapierre
Dear Friend in Freedom,
The U.N. is conspiring to destroy your gun rights.
And Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are using the U.N. for their "under the radar" program for gun control in America.
The "Small Arms Treaty" now being negotiated at the U.N. is a TROJAN HORSE disguised as an effort to combat international gun trafficking.
In reality, it's a sinister ploy by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and foreign bureaucrats to thrust a dagger deep into the heart of our Bill of Rights!
A recent FORBES (http://www.nramedia.org/t/109363/47905523/5253/0/) article (http://www.nramedia.org/t/109363/47905523/5253/0/) confirms that if passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the treaty "would almost certainly force the U.S." to:
- ENACT DRACONIAN GUN LICENSING, making it next to impossible for you to purchase and own a firearm.
- CONFISCATE and DESTROY all "unauthorized" firearms as determined by foreign bureaucrats.
- BAN THE TRADE, SALE AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of all semi-automatic firearms.
- ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY, opening the door to "full-scale gun confiscation" in the U.S.
You can see the FORBES article for yourself by clicking here (http://www.nramedia.org/t/109363/47905523/5253/0/).
-
The UN is the most worthless organization on the face of the earth.
Where else do a bunch of mucky-ups from a group of 3rd world, can't-get-our-crap-together nations think they can tell countries that subsidize their very being how they should and shouldn't do things? (Tell me, who's countries work and who's don't? But they know better than US?)
It's got my vote for the dumbest situation on the planet.
We ought to send them all home and bulldoze the building.
(I know, you all want to know how I really feel.)
-
Can't say I disagree with you there.
-
Dan, Other than belonging to the NRA or contacting our representatives, what can be done to stop this?
-
Our Constitution is the supreme law of our land.
That being said, all we have to do to protect ourselves from foreign bodies like the UN is to strengthen dependence on the Constitution… Isn’t that right?
The UN doesn’t seem to become stronger because it is actually getting stronger. I think that it just appears that way because there is a movement to make Us, and our dependence on freedom and the Constitution, weaker.
(Yay! My first post.)
-
ScottC...
Let's start by getting Barack Obama out of the white house. Then we need to stack the deck in Congress with conservatives that will not stand for undermining the sovereignty of this Nation.
Then we can move on to getting the USA out of the UN
-
I agree with the idea that the current president needs to go. It may not be that easy, considering his efforts to keep the unions, "non-traditional" Americans, and groups that lean to the left happy and content.
The only salvation may be that Treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. But then that can be changed with enough effort and deal making.
-
The Founders were brilliant. They gave Us the tools and systems necessary to protect ourselves from just about everyone.
The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That means if Nebraska doesn’t like the Federal law, and the Constitution doesn’t authorize it, then it is Nebraska’s duty to pass a law declaring the Federal law null.
“To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.” - http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com)
“some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too.” - http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com)
We the people of Nebraska, tell our government that we don’t like (insert unconstitutional law) and that it needs to stand between Us and that law. Voila! We’re safe.
Example/Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/colorado-south-dakota-firearms-freedom-act-introduced/ (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/colorado-south-dakota-firearms-freedom-act-introduced/)
-
Nick,
I agree with you in principle, but in practice the Federal government has decided to effectively ignore the 10th amendment. If the states stood up to the Feds I'm not sure what would happen.
-
This is why when we VOTE.... we must FIND OUT what that person stands for and where they may go not just reelect the same clone type with all of their false promises. And being active in supporting our rights to bear arm groups.
-
Nick,
I agree with you in principle, but in practice the Federal government has decided to effectively ignore the 10th amendment. If the states stood up to the Feds I'm not sure what would happen.
They’d first be shocked, then they’d try to resist, and then they’d take it. We are starting to learn how the system is really supposed to work (Nebraska stands between us and Federal government). They certainly aren't going to invade Nebraska... We'll probably just throw lawsuits back and forth.
Unfortunately, so many of us don’t really understand this. It is our duty to spread the word.
First, we group together and educate ourselves. Second, we actually build relationships with our representatives. Third, we get them to take control of Nebraska and stand up against the Feds.
-
I think we all know Obama will not be re-elected. On top of the rediculous amount of money he has managed to cost our nation, the novelty is worn off.
-
There are a lot of folks out there that have already drank the Koolaid and will vote for whatever stupidity comes down the pike if they think Obama is for it. They still act like he's doing them all a favor, even after all the dumb that has occurred these last few years.
They worship him, no matter what the effect on the US.
When Carter was elected, I thought never again.... Then Clinton (not once, but twice!!!!)... And now this socialist...
-
I think we all know Obama will not be re-elected. On top of the rediculous amount of money he has managed to cost our nation, the novelty is worn off.
While I'd like to believe that, the Republicans have shown themselves capable of blowing what should be an easy victory. Sick Willie beating Bush the First shouldn't have happened, not to mention several other Democrat victories. The Democrats have shown themselve to suffer from the same ailment. With any luck, a worthy Republican, or better yet, a Tea Party member, will win the nomination and election but don't take anything for granted.
-
REPORT FROM THE U.N.
BY JULIANNE VERSNEL
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
Today, the most recent Chairman’s Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty was distributed. Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan authored the outline for the proposed ATT based on consultation, discussion and guidelines decided upon in this and the two previous Preparatory Conference meetings. This document dated 14 July 2011 covers the Scope, Criteria, Implementation and Final Provisions that are expected to be in the ATT presented for discussion in July 2012.
The Preamble under item six, “recognizes the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.” This language is a direct response to the serious reservations expressed by the U.S. and other delegations.
Unfortunately after this comes the Scope of the proposed treaty. This includes along with tanks, Artillery Systems, Naval Vessels and Missile Systems--small arms and all ammunition for these small arms.
While acknowledging a constitutional right, the criteria and record keeping requirements proposed in the treaty would necessitate the special marking of all firearms (IV, 1, h) and more critically all ammunition (IV, 1, j). The costs involved in both the physical marketing and record keeping are enormous. The proposed document also includes the creation of an Implementation Support Unit (VI, G-1) with yearly reporting and records kept for a minimum of 10 years. (V1, B-1).
Another egregious proposal is the Victim Assistance proposal. (VI, F) This provision is one that has been presented repeatedly at Programme of Action and Conference of Parties meetings. Many African, Southern American, Central American and Caribbean countries have proposed that manufacturers contribute to a fund based on their sales. Alternately they would assess fees on countries based on the value of its arms exports.
As the ATT moves closer to its final form, it is imperative that we realize that the technical requirements and definitions still to be determined are very dangerous. Much of the debate on these will take place in side events that are very often closed to NGOs.
The US already has the most stringent import and export requirements for firearms in the world. While this proposed treaty is supposed to be about conventional weapons, the focus in the discussions is on small arms, the very firearms that our US Constitution guarantees us the right to bear.
The Second Amendment Foundation remains vigilant and will continue monitoring this Arms Trade Treaty. We will not remain silent in our fight to maintain your right to keep and right and bear arms. We cannot trust the very organization that devised and administered the oil for food program in Iraq to respect our Constitutional rights—particularly the right to keep and bear arms.
-
engrish? i just spent all day in class. My brain is in pain trying to comprehend all the legalese.
Best i can understand is something to the effect of it will require yet another registration?
-
Dan's post covers parts of the original question I presented. I am still curious, does the NRA have any influence in the international arena?
-
I am sure the NRA is one of the non governmental organizations (ngo) that along with the Second Amendment Foundation were prominent in the "serious reservations expressed" area
-
Thursday, July 14, 2011
National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Preparatory Committee - 3d Session
New York, July 11-15, 2011
Statement of the National Rifle Association of America
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.
The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena.
The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.
This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.
We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.
We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.
Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.
We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.
We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms."
Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.
We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.
We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.
We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.
We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.
We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.
Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.
Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.
It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.
Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss i f I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.
To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT.
Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.
So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.
The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.
Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.
Thank you.
-
Wow, Mr. LaPierre laid the smack down on them.
-
The UN is After Your Guns (From the GOA)
Friday, 15 July 2011 14:53
Push for Gun Control Treaty Continues
A UN committee wrapped up a week-long series of meetings on a massive treaty that could undermine both U.S. sovereignty and the Second Amendment. This is the third round of meetings by the so-called “preparatory committee” on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as the UN gears up for final negotiations in 2012.
The most comprehensive treaty of its kind, the ATT would regulate weapons trade throughout the world on everything from battleships to bullets.
And as information trickles out of Turtle Bay in New York City, it is obvious the UN is getting more clever about taking the focus off of “small arms.”
With an eye cast in the direction of the U.S.—in particular, toward the U.S. Senate which must ratify the treaty—the most recent Draft Paper for the Arms Trade Treaty recognizes in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.”
That statement, taken by itself, is troubling. Americans’ right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not it is “recognized” by some UN committee. The right enshrined in the Second Amendment predates our own Constitution, and does not need an international stamp of approval.
But the preamble aside, the scope of the treaty is what’s most damaging. Though negotiations will continue for another year, some provisions are certain to be contained in the final draft.
The ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition. And it will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.
It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (i.e., the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.
Any suggestion that the treaty might not impact all firearms—right down to common hunting rifles—was thrown out the window after seeing the reaction to the Canadian government’s motion that hunting rifles be exempted from the treaty.
The Canadian representative caused a stir among the other delegates this week when he proposed that the treaty include the following language: “Reaffirming that small arms have certain legitimate civilian uses, including sporting, hunting, and collecting purposes.”
While Canadian gun owners were pleased with even the slightest movement by its government to protect gun rights, the proposed language is yet another indication that ALL firearms are “on the table.”
Feeble as it is, Canadian proposal was viewed as a major wrench thrown in the works, and had the anti-gunners crying foul.
Kenneth Epps is a representative with the Canadian anti-gun group known as Project Plowshares. According to Postmedia News, Epps said Canada’s move is hampering efforts to forge a comprehensive global arms control regime.
Noting that there is little difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle, Epps said, “The problem is that once you introduce exemptions, others will do the same. It’s the thin edge of the wedge….From a humanitarian perspective, all firearms need to be controlled, and that’s the bottom line.”
Such statements are eagerly welcomed by the Obama administration. Since it has been largely stymied in pushing gun control in Congress, U.S. negotiators will push the envelope as far as they can.
The U.S. Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, a key negotiator of the ATT, is anti-gun former Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California. Tauscher said last year that her team at the State Department “will work between now and the UN Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty.”
In 2009, newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed the position of the Bush administration (which voted against the treaty in 2008) and stated that “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.”
International standards, however, may not be the only, or even the primary, objective. Former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, observes that, “The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a framework for gun control statutes at the national level.”
Bolton explains that pressure from the groups agitating for the treaty—groups such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA)—is geared toward constraining the freedoms of countries that recognize gun rights. “And specifically, and most importantly, [to] constrain the United States,” Bolton said.
Negotiators, from abroad and within the Obama administration, view arms control as protecting human rights, rather than seeing civilian disarmament for what it is—the favorite tool of despots, dictators and tyrants to maintain power by engaging in mass murder and genocide.
And, perversely, in many instances those resisting an oppressive, genocidal regime would be held in the same light as criminals and terrorists and be legally prohibited under the ATT from purchasing weapons.
U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) makes this point in a letter he drafted to President Obama: “[T]he underlying philosophy of the Arms Trade Treaty is that transfers to and from governments are presumptively legal, while transfers to non-state actors…are, at best, problematic.”
Sen. Moran’s letter, in which he is joined by other pro-gun Senators, warned that any treaty “that seeks in any way to regulate the domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, and related items would be completely unacceptable to us.”
U.S. freedom is clearly in the sights of the ATT. The time to take action is now, before the treaty moves into final negotiations.
ACTION: Urge your Senators to oppose any UN effort to impose restrictions on the Second Amendment, and to sign on to Sen. Moran’s letter to President Obama in opposition to the ATT.
-
SAF'S FINAL U.N. ATT REPORT
FINAL REPORT on the Third Preparatory Committee (Prep Comm) meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty that ended on July 15, 2011.
By Julianne Versnel, Second Amendment Foundation Director of Operations
With the Chairman's Draft Paper distributed on July 14, 2011, it is apparent that small arms and ammunition will be included in the ATT final draft that will be hammered out at the month-long negotiating conference in July 2012. Small arms and ammunition have been the focus of much of the discussions by the delegates. While this was expected from many less developed states, the vehement and strident comments suggesting the scope of the proposed ATT be broadened by Australia, Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland and Norway were somewhat surprising.
This meeting had over 375 requests for registrations by NGOs and other interested parties. This was not a meeting open and specific permission had to be received so that registration could even be made. This is an unprecedented number.
A member of the UN staff asked me on the first day of the meeting why there were so many people who wanted to attend this conference. The First and Second Prep Comms meetings had had about 100 and 125 NGOs in attendance respectively. As the week progressed, the answer to the question became obvious. This conference is about firearms and ammunition. Just as this is an emotional issue that elicits strong feelings from Americans, so it is in the rest of the world.
The great majority of those attending were from organizations that deal almost exclusively with small arms. On July 14, 2011, NGOs were allocated one hour to make statements. Control Arms, a Survivors' Declaration and IANSA spoke and were followed by remarks by the National Rifle Association, World Forum for the Future of Sports Shooting Activities and Defense Small Arms Advisory Committee. There was no presentation that discussed any part of the scope of the treaty beyond firearms and ammunition.
The fourth and final Prep Comm is to take place in mid February 2012. While this has been described as a technical conference, there is little likelihood that there will actually be further discussion for expanding the scope and reach of the ATT to be presented the following July.
The Second Amendment Foundation remains vigilant in covering the progress of the upcoming United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.