UN Small Arms Treaty: hype vs reality?

[Lumpy]

So the UN Arms Trade Treaty is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the year. Ostensibly, this is simply an agreement by the signatories to establish common standards for arms trading to try to cut the flow of weapons to terrorists and organized crime. To hear the paranoid-right tell it, it is the first step towards de-legitimizing the non-state possession of weapons. Is the treaty as benign as it's presented, or does it set any troubling precedents?

[Grayskies]

I am not sure, but I seriously doubt it with keep even one gun out of the hands of terrorists.

[hammAR]

In March 2013 a finished version of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was finally presented to the U.N. General Assembly, and that body approved the treaty by a vote 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) on 2 April 2013. The U.S. was one of the member nations voting in the General Assembly to approve the treaty; only Iran, North Korea, and Syria voted against it.

The treaty was finally signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in September 2013, but it still requires approval by the U.S. Senate before the United States commits to its terms.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Constitutionally speaking, before the UN Arms Treaty can be instituted it needs to be ratified by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. Harry Reed refused to bring this POS treaty up for a vote because he knew it would be overwhelming rejected. If the GOP was smart, and I'm not holding my breath, they'd bring this treaty up for a vote so it can be relegated to the trash heap once and for all.

[Hmac]

Interesting article of the subject http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

Throughout its history, the United States has signed numerous treaties
that it has not subsequently ratified.
5
This phenomenon has been especially
evident in the last several decades, during which time the United States has
signed, but has not yet ratified, a variety of important multilateral treaties.
These treaties include significant human rights agreements such as the In-
ternational Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (signed in
1977); the American Convention on Human Rights (signed in 1977); the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Wo-
men (signed in 1980); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(signed in 1995). They also include important environmental treaties such
as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (signed in 1998); the Rio Convention on Biological Diver-
sity (signed in 1993); and an agreement revising the seabed mining provi-
sions of the Law of the Sea Convention (signed in 1994). Another set of
treaties that have been signed but not ratified, much discussed in connection
with the post-September 11 war on terrorism, are the First and Second Ad-
ditional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (signed in 1977). Finally, the
United States has signed but not ratified a number of private international
law treaties

[LePetomane]

One thing to realize is that one of the goals of the UN is to create a world order in which the United Stated relinquishes all sovereignty to the world government run by their thugs (with our cash). The organization has not lived up to the goals in their original charter since its founding. They have always shown support to the nefarious activities brought on by dictators while chastising countries like the US and Israel, referring to them as human rights abusers, etc.

They do not hold any legal authority over the US. If they had their way they would. The freedoms we have here continue to be a thorn in their side.

I'm confident the treaty will not be ratified.

[LarryP]

I'm sure every terrorist & criminal will abide by it

You always need to look into the real meaning of laws like this. It's designed to be gun control of law abiding people. That's their only goal.

[Randygmn]

Constitutionally speaking, before the UN Arms Treaty can be instituted it needs to be ratified by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. Harry Reed refused to bring this POS treaty up for a vote because he knew it would be overwhelming rejected. If the GOP was smart, and I'm not holding my breath, they'd bring this treaty up for a vote so it can be relegated to the trash heap once and for all.

I agree. As a sign of good faith, in response to the voters delivering a resounding victory for the GOP last week, this vote should be one of the first orders of business in January. It will offer relief to those citizens who harbor distrust about this treaty and the UN in general and will further emasculate the president, who now stands naked and powerless. Its a win-win.

[jdege]

The organization has not lived up to the goals in their original charter since its founding.

Nonsense.

The organization has accomplished nearly all of the goals of those who were responsible for its creation.

Of course, you have to look at who they were, if you want to understand it. As in, who was secretary general of the U.N. founding conference, and who was responsible for its initial staffing.

[photogpat]

The organization has not lived up to the goals in their original charter since its founding.

Nonsense.

The organization has accomplished nearly all of the goals of those who were responsible for its creation.

Of course, you have to look at who they were, if you want to understand it. As in, who was secretary general of the U.N. founding conference, and who was responsible for its initial staffing.

I've been professionally active via an NGO at the UN for the last 3 years. There is quite a bit of good that the UN does that goes unheralded. For example in the realms of standardizing transportation of hazardous materials (Dangerous Goods)...previously you had countries like the US and Western Europe at a competitive disadvantage worldwide since we all had fairly stringent regs (for good reason) and countries in the former Eastern Block, Africa and South America did not. Harmonization of these regs has HELPED US manufacturers.

Not saying that the UN is all sunshine and roses, but I don't necessarily think they exist solely to stoke conspiracy theorists either.

I've read the treaty text - and I've also seen our Senate's text as well. This wouldn't (can't) affect US firearms ownership...and frankly, doesn't change US export laws either since we're already covered by ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). ITAR has provisions and reviews that prohibit the sale (or transfer) of arms to certain countries based on their human rights record among other things...the same as this treaty would do.

It DOES change things for some of the former commie block countries who send AK/AKM's by the shipping container load to the various war-torn areas of the planet. Frankly don't have an issue with them getting restricted.

[Ghost]

It DOES change things for some of the former commie block countries who send AK/AKM's by the shipping container load to the various war-torn areas of the planet. Frankly don't have an issue with them getting restricted.

I doubt this will change.

[photogpat]

It DOES change things for some of the former commie block countries who send AK/AKM's by the shipping container load to the various war-torn areas of the planet. Frankly don't have an issue with them getting restricted.

I doubt this will change.

Of course not. But then the UN has more reasons for sanctions -- only this time they MEAN IT!!

[ex-LT]

It DOES change things for some of the former commie block countries who send AK/AKM's by the shipping container load to the various war-torn areas of the planet. Frankly don't have an issue with them getting restricted.

I doubt this will change.

Of course not. But then the UN has more reasons for sanctions -- only this time they MEAN IT!!

Except for the nations that ignore the sanctions anyway (France & Russia after Gulf War I)

[farmerj]

and executive fiat has banned more than just a couple of imports and "re-imports". Or have people forgotten about those little orders signed since carter. Both parties included.

[20mm]

I think they should pass it. Lets get the show on the road!