UN - Small Arms Treaty adopted

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

update:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/un-adopts-landmark-treaty-to-regulate-multibillion-dollar-global-arms-trade/2013/04/02/4f9d5c80-9bac-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html

 

GG ~

[Six-Shot]

Yup . . . and the United States voted for it BUT it has to be ratified by the U.S. Senate to force American arms manufacturers and importers to comply with the treaty. I started a thread on this the other day and warned that it might effect the importation of "cowboy guns". There were skeptics. Unless we want to find out after the fact, I suggest you call or email your U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against ratification of this treaty.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Interesting part of the treaty process from Article II Section 2

Comes from the section pertaining to the presidents duties and powers, the He below refers to the president.

(An aside does this mean the USA can never have a female president, US Constitution refers to president with pronoun HE.)

 

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,
to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ....

 

Elsewhere there are words about a quorum to do business etc.

 

Yet most discussions about treaties normally revolve about the full senate and not "present".

Could the democrats in charge attempt an end run?

 

And of course there are many instruments signed by the president that appear to be treaties that are never ratified by the senate.

 

The final test of this particular treaty will come from the examination of the treaty and its words and affects upon the USA by the SCOTUS.

This examination would be for constitutionality. If it would negate or force a change of the US Constitution (and Amendments) to be changed then it might well be struck down.

 

 

On the subject of Cowboy guns etc.

I have doubts if it would seriously limit the export/import of cowboy type guns.

An excerpt from the Huffington post article;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/un-adopts-arms-treaty-global-weapons-trade_n_2999505.html

 

The treaty prohibits states that ratify it from transferring
conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote
acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It also
prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in
attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and
hospitals.

 

With the USA being a very large exporter why did the USA vote for this treaty?

Next question is will the USA actually ratify it our step away for economic and diplomatic reasons.

 

 

For Team SASS it would appear that the next question is what does the treaty really say and what does it really require signing countries to really do.

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

Interesting the last two sentences of the quote could mean any weapon maunfactured because they all could be used for that purpose.

 

KK

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Luckily the Senate voted 53-46 'To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.'

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091

 

 

GG ~

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Be sure to do what you can to vote the 46 rats out of office!

[Six-Shot]

Interesting the last two sentences of the quote could mean any weapon maunfactured because they all could be used for that purpose.

 

KK

Precisely!

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Do remember that the quote was only a quote from a magazine article and not the actual treaty.

The actual language of the treaty could be different and use a word such as would instead of could and are instead of could.

I dont recall ever hearing about any modern day massacre using cowboy guns.

 

About GGs Senate vote, I wonder if that can be considered a legal lack of advise and lack of consent to the treaty previous to submission.

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

another dead issue . good

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

 

 

About GGs Senate vote, I wonder if that can be considered a legal lack of advise and lack of consent to the treaty previous to submission.

Hmmmmm...

 

GG

[Six-Shot]

Luckily the Senate voted 53-46 'To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.'

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091

 

 

GG ~

That vote was prior to the passage of the treaty. It was "non-binding".

[Six-Shot]

from NEWSMAX:

 

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.

 

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

 

With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions.

 

American gun rights activists, though, insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. They do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

 

Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a nonbinding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

 

“The Senate has already gone on record in stating that an Arms Trade Treaty has no hope, especially if it does not specifically protect the individual right to bear arms and American sovereignty,” Sen. Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican who backed Mr. Inhofe’s motion, said in a statement. “It would be pointless for the president to sign such a treaty and expect the Senate to go along. We won’t ratify it.”

 

Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured President Obama to support the treaty, and Amnesty International hailed Tuesday’s vote.

 

“The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses,” said Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA.

 

The American Bar Association also released a white paper arguing that the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.

 

General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic said Tuesday that the lack of a regulatory framework on the import and transfer of conventional arms “has made a daunting contribution to ongoing conflict, regional instabilities, displacement of peoples, terrorism and transnational organized crime.”

 

“Whatever the outcome of today’s meeting, for a treaty to be effective, we will need to keep working together to fulfill its goals,” he said.

 

Under the treaty, countries must also consider whether weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights laws, facilitate acts of terrorism or organized crime.

 

Proponents had hoped that the treaty could be ratified by acclamation at a final negotiating conference last week, but Syria, Iran and North Korea objected.

 

The final vote Tuesday was 154 countries in favor, three against, and 23 abstaining.

 

Some abstaining countries, like India and Egypt, felt the treaty did not go far enough on its language regarding terrorism and human rights.

 

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC

 

 

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/united-nations-arms-trafficking/2013/04/02/id/497439?s=al&promo_code=1300A-1#ixzz2PLgYmUke

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

That vote was prior to the passage of the treaty. It was "non-binding".

Okay..maybe this will ease your blood pressure (for the moment) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty/

 

GG

[Six-Shot]

Okay..maybe this will ease your blood pressure (for the moment) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty/

 

GG

GG, how did you know I have high blood presuure? Does it show that much?

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

GG, how did you know I have high blood pressure? Does it show that much?

It was the bold type

 

Actually I reckon we all are suffering from high blood pressure these days...physically or virtually.

 

GG

[Utah Bob #35998]

It was the bold type

 

Actually I reckon we all are suffering from high blood pressure these days...physically or virtually.

 

GG

Boy that's for sure. I may have to switch back to Decaf. Haven't had to do that since I retired.

[Six-Shot]

Boy that's for sure. I may have to switch back to Decaf. Haven't had to do that since I retired.

I switched to decaf and quit smoking 10 years ago. I'm thinkin' of takin' both up again!

[Kiowa Kid, SASS #69870L]

Do remember that the quote was only a quote from a magazine article and not the actual treaty.

The actual language of the treaty could be different and use a word such as would instead of could and are instead of could.

I dont recall ever hearing about any modern day massacre using cowboy guns.

 

About GGs Senate vote, I wonder if that can be considered a legal lack of advise and lack of consent to the treaty previous to submission.

The pact also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/senators-vow-to-oppose-un-arms-trade-treaty/#ixzz2PPUMcYCk It shows up again in this report so I'm thinking it has some merit.

KK

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

It is definitely something to keep an eye on.

But remember that the UN members voted to approve the treaty as a text.

In June, IIRC, they get ratify it.

That will be the real test.

 

As one of the largest arms exporters in the world I cannot see a reason why the USA would sign it.

Further, I don't see how the US Senate could ratify it.

 

As for whether fox or any other news reporting system has the facts straight, how many times have we had threads where we are reminded that we should look at more sources than one.

So far no one has posted a link to the actual treaty words.

Those are what really matters.

The rest is truly speculation and perhaps spin by the anti-gun press.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

 

As one of the largest arms exporters in the world I cannot see a reason why the USA would sign it.

 

One only needs to look at the occuping power in the White House to see the 'reason'...sadly.

 

GG ~

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

He can sign it Who cares .It would not pass the smell test for the 2nd amendment .

[Madd Mike #8595]

He can sign it Who cares .It would not pass the smell test for the 2nd amendment .

cant you see that the smell test for the 2nd, is getting prutty darned smelly, and smellier by the day

you post, like this is all a aprils fool joke, well it aint

as soon as we back off, these things will pass

just look at the votes for it, it should have been 0 voteing for it, we are the USA for cryin out loud

000ps,,we were the USA, once upon a time