# UN ATT - Not Good



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm sure by now everyone knows, who pays attention, that J Kerry has signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty. This is a bad deal. This document could allow foreign powers to regulate and legislate for this nation on firearm ownership going against the laws of the land we already adhere to. I say this, for example, that countries like China say it is against human rights for citizens to be allowed to own and possess a firearm. According to China, the Second Ammendment would infact violate the treaty.

Please contact your Senators and ask for a vote of 'NO' on ratification of the treaty. Fortunately, the guys in UT have the support they already need.


----------



## ted (Oct 22, 2011)

High Desert Elk said:


> This document could allow foreign powers to regulate and legislate for this nation on firearm ownership going against the laws of the land we already adhere to.


What gives you that idea? The treaty's about the international arms trade and has nothing to do with domestic gun ownership. Misinformation just leads to more ammunition hoarding.

You can read the document yourself (PDF) if you're interested. The English translation starts on page 20.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Ted, regardless of what language is written, if the language is written loosly it can be interpreted to fit purpose. A supreme court justice has done just that on the 2nd Ammendment ruling by stating (paraphrase) "[that the 2nd Ammendment does not specifically state that an individual has the right to own a semi-automatic rifle, or assault rifle, just that they have the right to bear arms]". The 2nd Ammendment also does not state that they can't own one either. Interpreted two different ways. The 2nd Ammendment was written just that way to facilitate a change in technology, otherwise language would have been put in to describe muskets.

Language in the ATT does mention small arms. What are small arms? If a UN Assembly decides that the US has violated human rights by allowing it's citizens to own a firearm and because of that said firearm was used to take life, then it can be argued that the US is in violation of the treaty and cannot export or import arms. In the long run, it could jeoprodize the ownership of firearms. The UN does not view self defense a resonable use of a firearm, that is for the government to provide. In short, you are supposed to do just what AG Holder said, run from your house and call police.

No government or bodies of government has the right to decide for you what you can and cannot not own as long as the action you do with such property in itself cause no loss to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. A personnal dislike for it does not warrant the product's ownership nullified. Especially when the established law of the land and governing document in place solidifies that right. If one part of it is compromised, then the entire document and system of rights is forfeit.

You cannot go through life with your head buried in the sand thinking all is well...

And no, I am not infactuated with Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh either. I am, however, very sceptical on anything that is sponsered by government.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

ted said:


> Misinformation just leads to more ammunition hoarding.


Very true. There is nothing like someone starting internet rumors and getting people to believe it is true.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Not starting rumors. The document has been signed. Forums are places for sharing viewpoints and expressing opinions...

So, teach me then where I am wrong.


----------



## ted (Oct 22, 2011)

High Desert Elk said:


> If a UN Assembly decides that the US has violated human rights by allowing it's citizens to own a firearm and because of that said firearm was used to take life, then it can be argued that the US is in violation of the treaty and cannot export or import arms. In the long run, it could jeoprodize the ownership of firearms. The UN does not view self defense a resonable use of a firearm, that is for the government to provide.


So, the argument is that Kerry signing (not ratifying, mind you) a treaty about the international arms trade might possibly damage gun ownership rights in the US because the UN doesn't like guns?

This is exactly the kind of slippery-slope argument that leads to mass paranoia, a run on ammo, and a whole lot of frustrated gun owners. I agree that it's important to pay attention, but nearly anything _could_ affect gun ownership. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's likely.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Ted is your last name Kennedy?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Keep your head in the sand teddy keep voting for these pos


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Has anyone here actually read the treaty?


Of those who have read it, does anyone understand what it says?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I read it, this is trade and export regulation. Specifically designed around illicit trade of "conventional" weapons. This is everything from tanks to rifles, to missiles. It is essentially an agreement, to standards, to reduce, illegal, international, arms exports.

This has no bearing on domestic ownership. From the Preamble:

"_Reaffirming_ the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its own legal or constitutional system,"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It is something to be held against those that supply weapons to terrorists, and rogue nations. Or say that a country like Russia or China signs on, and then down the road, just like in the past, they are found to be supplying arms, in violation of the treaty, to someone that is hostile to us, it gives us another avenue of remedy, if it does not deter such behavior in the first place.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The way that I look at it no country obeys the rules that the UN put out or agree to so why worry? Most of the stuff that they are doing now is touchy feely, goody goody stuff that no one has any intentions of following. 

I also highly doubt that the US Congress will even think about passing this thing. At least that is the way that it looks to me.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

True - it pertains to imports and exports
True- it does not specifically speak to domestic ownership
True - it is an operating agreement among soveign nations to curb illegal traffic arms 
to criminals against humanity.

But the Affordable Health Care Act, aka, Obamacare was reworded to become "constitutional" and now look where we are. Most all people really don't want it but that hasn't stopped it from being imposed on everyone against their will.

All it takes is devissive interpretation and you get a whole new meaning on the same thing.

The framework has been laid, that's it and that's all.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It does specifically speak to domestic ownership. It has no jurisdiction, over ownership of firearms in any country. It has no teeth, until a country tries to transfer arms, to another country or entity. 

It specifically spells out, that participating countries constitutions, over ride this treaty. US Constitutional sovereignty is not affected by this treaty, it has no authority on US soil. This kind of uninformed fear mongering will be the ultimate downfall of firearm ownership. If we as firearms owners, do not fully understand the implications of laws, and their effects, then we can be swayed by emotion, and manipulated by those that seek only to utilize gun owners as political tools. Not that anyone would do that.

As for the AHA, I was in favor of it when the Heritage Institute first came up with it, and the now un-constitutional penalty. The constitutionality of the penalty portion of the AHA, hinged on whether it was a fee, or a tax. That is a question of authority. there is no question of authority with this treaty. Only fear mongering over created unknowns, and fictitious future non-potentials, to sequester a particular voting block.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I'm sure by now everyone knows, who pays attention, that J Kerry has signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty. This is a bad deal. This document could allow foreign powers to regulate and legislate for this nation on firearm ownership going against the laws of the land we already adhere to. I say this, for example, that countries like China say it is against human rights for citizens to be allowed to own and possess a firearm. According to China, the Second Ammendment would infact violate the treaty.
> 
> Please contact your Senators and ask for a vote of 'NO' on ratification of the treaty. Fortunately, the guys in UT have the support they already need.


Seriously? This is the issue you are going to focus on today? Can I please buy some of the 1,000,000 rounds of .308 you must have burried in your back-yard?


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Lonetree said:


> It is something to be held against those that supply weapons to terrorists, and rogue nations. Or say that a country like Russia or China signs on, and then down the road, just like in the past, they are found to be supplying arms, in violation of the treaty, to someone that is hostile to us, it gives us another avenue of remedy, if it does not deter such behavior in the first place.


Now if only our own country would stop supplying terrorists with weapons....


----------

