U.N. Arms Treaty is bunk

[Bob Mayne]

OK, this is ridiculous. Tonight I heard Dick Morris advancing the notion that the so called upcoming UN Arms Treaty will restrict gun ownership here in the USA. That's false, folks. It's propoganda. He claims a lame duck Senate will ratify it. When is the last time you saw 2/3 of the Senate agree on anything? Many of those Senators will be up for re-election in 2 years and aren't about to risk it. Also, a treaty DOES NOT trump the Constitution. I really wish Dick Morris, Fox News and the rest of the internet jockeys would quit spreading this nonesense. Let's not divert our resources towards fighting this meaningless treaty. We have bigger battles to fight for gun rights here at home. Please read FactCheck.org on this matter.  http://factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

[moreshooting]

Bob,

I agree with you that some of the hype around the UN Small Arms Treaty is over stated.  There is nothing that I've been able to find that states that guns on US soil will be banned.  Matter of fact most of the wording really talks about the control of illegal arms across international borders.  If that is true then we really don't have anything to worry about.

Where I think we have to worry is terms of the controls that will have to be put into place to insure that we are complying with the terms of the treaty.  As in most things involving the government, the ideology can be very sound but the implementation can really be done wrong.  In the case of the small arms treaty, I think that some of the concerns revolve around the idea that in order to control the flow of guns, better inventory methods will have to be implemented.  In this respect I'm not talking about the inventory that a business holds only.  It is quite possible that the implementation of the treaty could include some form of gun registration for every firearm in the United States.  I know that to a lot of Second Amendment advocates this is tantamount to banning and taking away our guns.  I think the jury is still out in that regard.

As for the internet spinners.  Yes we all (including myself) would be much better served if we were more thorough with the research of our information before we actually posted it out there as the "TRUTH"  ....

Thanks for taking on this topic.  I look forward to following it to see what others thing.


Be Safe, Shot More, Stay Accurate.


Jeff S

[Bob Mayne]

Gun Registration is not a Federal issue, it's a State issue.  We have some states that register and some that don't.  The House and Senate would have to pass Federal gun registration and President would have to sign it.  Possible?  Yes.  Probable? probably not as long as the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation and we gun rights activists stay sharp and focused. 

A treaty does not trump the Constitution. 

I understand your concern about complying with the treaty.  However, there are probably millions of unregistered guns in the hands of American's already.  Also, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens that did not have to fill out a 4473 form to buy them. (Legal in Texas if you buy from a private person.) 

Federal gun registration to comply with a U.N. Treaty would be a very tall order to get passed in this country in my opinion.  There are a lot of Democrat gun loving politicians who wouldn't support it either.

[PoliticsAndGuns]

I just uploaded episode 48 and in an interview with Sebastian of www.pagunblog.com we talk about this quite a bit. Basically even if it passes out of the UN and is signed by Obama, the Senate has very little chance of ratifying it. Worst case scenario short term is that we will have a tougher time getting foreign ammo and guns. (hello all you Glock, Beretta, and SKS fans out there). This is still a pain in the butt that we do not need, but it isn't Armageddon yet.

[Bob Mayne]

A Glock is technically not a foreign gun.  Yes, it says "made in Austria" and parts are imported from Austria.  But Glock makes a lot of guns in Smyrna, GA and has the capability to make more of them here in the USA if needed.  You could say the same for Springfield XD's as they are made in "Croatia."  Or some of the Springfield 1911's as they are made in Brazil.  But I bet Springfield could make those guns here in the USA pretty easily.

I'm confident that US gunmakers could easily respond the demand for their guns.  Where the problem may occur, is as you mentioned, SKS's, SAIGA AK's, Mosin Nagants, etc., that truly are imported and no version is made here in the USA.

[moreshooting]

Bob

I agree with you that the treaty can not trump the constitution.  And that the chance of ratification is slim.  But I also believe that as responsible gun owners and more importantly as citizens we have the responsibility to examine and challenge our leaders to insure that they are representing us properly. Many people unfortunately think that you elect them based on what they said and their direction will never change.  Well I think they are human too and are not always able to see clearly or fully the implications of their decisions.  As a true trusted servant, which is what I see that our representatives are supposed to be, you must constantly request that your constituents inform you about what their thoughts are and you must have the humility to accept that direction.  

One of the concerns that I've heard and I'm not sure if it's valid, is that if the POTUS signs the treaty then it would take a 2/3 majority vote to overturn it.  Do you know if that is true? 

The examination of the UN Small Arms Treaty should cause us all to go out and either directly read the text, which can be quite complex, or at least attempt to obtain non-bias analysis of the treaty.  We can't just accept it on faith.  Yes I believe there is a lot of over-reaction to the concept of the treaty, but I believe that's a part of the challenging that is required by a democracy that is run by a government that is run for the people.

Related to the foreign ammo, do you know how much of our ammo that we use today is actually manufactured in the United States?  I'd be curious, because if it's a large percentage then there is a big problem coming up.
  

 

[Bob Mayne]

Good points. If you read the factcheck.org article I linked to it explains a lot of the language in the treaty.

As for the 2/3 majority. Good question. I do know it requires 2/3 majority to be ratified. Not sure about being overridden.

Regarding ammo another good point. The only negative I could see this treaty causing, is raising the price of ammo and foreign made guns.

[PoliticsAndGuns]

I am not certain about the percentage of ammo that is used domestically that is produced domestically, however I do know that as a truck driver I have run many many loads out of the Federal Ammunition plant in central Minnesota. I try to use their ammo as much as possible because they support my income by sending freight through the company I pull trailers for. I have a feeling that most "Major Brand" ammunition is produced domestically although I have no proof of this.

Paul

[Devereaux]

Good points. If you read the factcheck.org article I linked to it explains a lot of the language in the treaty.

As for the 2/3 majority. Good question. I do know it requires 2/3 majority to be ratified. Not sure about being overridden.

Regarding ammo another good point. The only negative I could see this treaty causing, is raising the price of ammo and foreign made guns.

No treaty is in effect until the Senate ratifies it. It obviously is important that the President signs it, as that is the sign to the rest of the government that the administrative branch has "signed off" on the item. But it isn't effective until the Senate ratifies it. There are any number of treaties, including some weapon reduction ones I believe, that were never ratified by the Senate, so aren't binding.

Trouble is, of course, that an administration can act like the treaty is in effect, even when the Senate hasn't ratified it. And this administration has already demonstrated that it is more than willing to act as a rogue organ of the government. BO has done any number of things that are grossly unconstitutional, and no one has batted an eye. I really shouldn't single out this one only - most modern administrations have trampled the constitution pretty hard, as has the Congress. We have mostly reacted as sheep - follow the bell. Part of the reason we are in the bind we are.

[Bob Mayne]

That being the case, there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to stop Obama from signing it. What we can do is demand that our Senators don't ratify it. If the BHO administration wants to act like its binding there also nothing we can do about that but fight them at every turn. Which we do already. So what's the difference?

What I'm urging here is not to go into hysteria as some people are, thinking this will lead to quick registration and confiscation of our guns. A UN treaty cannot force us to do that.

We are already mounting a good fight to keep our gun rights and we need to keep doing so. Then the rest will take care of itself.

[SirBrass]

Tom Gresham had an interesting take on this on Guntalk this past Sunday.  He's not buying the "sky is falling" line of Dick Morris, but he IS saying that we should be contacting our Senators and telling them that if they vote to ratify this treaty that we'll contribute time, effort, and money to making sure that they are not re-elected.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[moreshooting]

SirBrass,


Sounds reasonable to me too.  Again an informed and active electorate is the surest way that we can guarantee our freedoms. 

[Devereaux]

SirBrass,


Sounds reasonable to me too.  Again an informed and active electorate is the surest way that we can guarantee our freedoms. 

No, an informed and active electorate is the second surest way, and the only peaceful way we can guarantee our freedoms. The 2A wasn't written so we could go hunting deer, or even protect ourselves and family, but to be ultimately able to remove an abuse government that refuses to leave in peaceable ways.

[SirBrass]

SirBrass,


Sounds reasonable to me too.  Again an informed and active electorate is the surest way that we can guarantee our freedoms. 

No, an informed and active electorate is the second surest way, and the only peaceful way we can guarantee our freedoms. The 2A wasn't written so we could go hunting deer, or even protect ourselves and family, but to be ultimately able to remove an abuse government that refuses to leave in peaceable ways.

Well yes, short of armed bloody revolution.  I think the FF wanted to account for that to keep the fed government honest (I'm chuckling in a dark humor over that), but the informed and active electorate should be our primary means of maintaining the honoring of our rights (the government doesn't give us our rights or give us the ability to keep them... we have them and we will always have them, it's just that the federal or state governments may at times attempt to suppress the expression of those rights or behave in such a manner that shows they don't believe those rights exist... it never means that stopped having those rights.  They can't take them from us because they weren't the ones to grant them to us.  Only God Almighty gave those rights to us, and only He in His perfect judgement can take them away... not some fallible or evil politician or judge).