NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: GreyGeek on April 02, 2013, 01:23:21 PM
-
Just got this email:
BREAKING NEWS Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:52 AM EDT
United Nations General Assembly Approves Landmark Arms Trade Treaty
The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve the first-ever treaty to regulate the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking such sales to the human-rights records of the buyers.
The vote on the Arms Trade Treaty came after an attempt to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran, Syria and North Korea blocking it. Those three countries, often ostracized as pariahs, contended the treaty was full of deficiencies and had been structured to be unfair to them.
The treaty would require states exporting conventional weapons to develop criteria that would link exports to avoiding human rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. It would also ban shipments if they were deemed harmful to women and children. Countries that join the treaty would have to report publicly on sales every year, exposing the process to levels of transparency that rights groups hope will severely limit illicit weapons deals.
So, will our State Department and Congress ignore the 2nd Amendment and pass universal gun "registration", changing, it to confiscation when all the records are in just to comply with "public" reporting of sales? Theoretically, that treaty should only apply to sales by our governments to groups or governments outside out country, but it could also be used to block sales of commercially made weapons overseas, or those made overseas from sales here.
Don't you just love it when tyranny hides behind the women and children, who usually suffer the most when tyrants take over?
-
Once the water was up to the deck chairs, the titanic was doomed.
Who here really thinks we are not already in water up to our knees?
We can slow the progression, and we should do anything we can to do so, but will citizen owned guns and the Second Amendment be around in another 100 years? 50 years? 20 years? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? 1 year?
I think it is a slope, slippery at that, and it is an issue of when, not if.
This is another nail in the coffin. Sure hate to see this going the direction it is moving.
-
If I recall correctly, the Senate has to ratify any treaty. Since this takes 60 votes, it should be a tall order. A gentle word to Fischer and Johanns is in order >:D
-
I'm pretty sure Fischer is good to go seeing as how she just warned/ updated us all on her Facebook page earlier today.
As for Johanns, he has let me/us down recently (see Monsanto Protection act) and needs to remember the people he represents.
-
I'm pretty sure Fischer is good to go seeing as how she just warned/ updated us all on her Facebook page earlier today.
As for Johanns, he has let me/us down recently (see Monsanto Protection act) and needs to remember the people he represents.
Johanns is retiring. He really doesn't care what we think.
-
Johanns is retiring. He really doesn't care what we think.
Sadly, that may be too true. :(
-
he has let me/us down recently (see Monsanto Protection act)
I was really disappointed at that.
-
BTW, AFAIK we didn't ratify this treaty... it failed here.
-
BTW, AFAIK we didn't ratify this treaty... it failed here.
Apparently not. In a dictatorship what the Senate votes against doesn't seem to matter, espeically if the Senators aren't willing to put their name behind their vote.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040413-650572-us-agrees-to-un-global-gun-control.htm (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040413-650572-us-agrees-to-un-global-gun-control.htm)
Global Gun Control: Despite a prior Senate rebuff, President Obama will likely sign and push a treaty embraced by the world's oppressors and thugs who fear armed citizens.
The treaty's prior rejection by the Senate 53-46 in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate in a body where a two-thirds vote to ratify is required would seem to doom the United Nations pact endorsed by the Obama administration.
However, the president will likely sign it and, as is his custom these days, try to enforce key provisions by stealth, executive order and by "common-sense" regulations and restrictions.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but "as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty."
But, the challenge has been made:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/texas-ag-obama-ill-sue-if-un-arms-treaty-ratified/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/texas-ag-obama-ill-sue-if-un-arms-treaty-ratified/)
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying that the state will head to court over the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty should Mr. Obama sign it and the U.S. Senate ratify it.
“The UN has concluded its negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty,” Mr. Abbotwrites. “It is now up to you to sign it — or reject it. Do not sign this treaty.”
Mr. Abbott writes that he understands the apparent purpose is to combat illegal arms trafficking around the world, but that the treaty could draw law-abiding gun owners and gun operators “into a complex web of bureaucratic red tape created by a new department at the UN devoted to overseeing the treaty.”
“As with most so-called international-law documents promulgated by the UN, the draft treaty is not written using the precise, unambiguous language required of a good legal document,” he continues. “Instead, the treaty employs sweeping rhetoric and imprecise terminology that could be used by those who seek to undermine our liberties to impose any number of restrictions on the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.”r