The UN Arms Trade Treaty: You Should Be Concerned


According to a recent NRA video they are not going to just stand by and let the United Nations put together a treaty behind closed doors without them knowing what is going on. Not only that, but they educate the American people on just how it could affect them and the Obama administration’s role in it all.

Clips from the video:

From a speaker at the UN: “It’s my firm conviction that illicit trade cannot be tackled without involving the legal arms trade.

“They claim they want to stop small arms from going to terrorist and guerilla groups but this small arms treaty really isn’t gonna do anything to stop that…”

“What you’ll wind up with is gun control on an international level specifically designed to be used against honest law abiding people.”

“Our freedoms are not negotiable.”

Ted Bromund, from Heritage, points out three basic points about the U.N. and the “gun grab” treaty,

    1. 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 Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities. 2. The U.N. and many of its member states are hostile to the private ownership of firearms.

    3. The U.S. is exceptional: It is one of the few nations that has a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment.

He then goes on to point out four concerns posed by the ATT:

1 .Transfer requirements. First, there are specific textual requirements. The most recent draft text states, for example, that the ATT will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then goes on to define “international transfers” as “the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.”

Does this mean that any transfers, including domestic ones, count as international and are thus subject to the treaty’s provisions? There are similar concerns related to the potential reporting requirements of the treaty and thus to the possible creation of a U.N.-based gun registry. If it is to be true to its published red lines, the U.S. cannot accept any of this.

2. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights. 3. Further review of the rules. This is not the end of the process. The ATT will be elaborated at review conferences, where the U.S. goal is to develop “best practices” for its implementation. Similarly, if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT.

4. Constitutional interpretation. Finally, the ATT is part of a process that will inspire judges and legal theorists who believe that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted in light of transnational norms. This is the most important problem of all, though it is broader than the ATT.

The biggest issue at stake is the influence of the United Nations on the interpretation of the Constitution by both current and future leaders. We have seen how our leaders have begun to look to other nations as to how to govern, instead of looking to the Constitution and that has gotten us in a heap of trouble. A large number of UN countries are in fact dictatorships and tyrants and they care nothing for their people. They certainly don’t care about us. America must be vigilant and guard her God given rights or she will lose them. We must demand of our senators to not affirm one bit of this treaty once it is finalized in just over a week.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Tagged with 

arms trade treaty concerns about the ATT un gun grap treaty