September 26, 2013
According to anonymous sources John Kerry, Secretary of State, “plans to sign a controversial UN treaty on arms regulation.”
The unnamed “state official claims that the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) promises to “reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. The treaty builds on decades of cooperative efforts to stem the international, illegal, and illicit trade in conventional weapons that benefits terrorists and rogue agents.”
Indeed, mainstream media is reporting that the Obama “administration signed a UN treaty [yesterday] to track exports of firearms and other conventional weapons.”
As was relayed, Kerry signed the UNSAT “on behalf of the United States” at the UN headquarters.
Kerry said that “this is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This treaty strengthens our security and builds global security without undermining the legitimate international trade in conventional arms.”
Senator Bob Corker, member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (SCFR), wrote a letter to President Obama concerning the ATT.
Corker told the president: “It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States. The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.”
Corker reminded Obama that “Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.”
Corker threatens Obama, saying: “. . . as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.”
Several months ago, prior to Kerry’s signature on the international agreement, Senator James Inhofe proposed two amendments into the Senate Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014 to restrict the US government’s participation in international efforts to disarm sovereign nations.
Inhofe wants to protect Americans from threats to the 2nd Amendment by the UN and the ATT.
Inhofe said: “The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is another attempt by internationalists to limit and infringe upon America’s sovereignty. Such a treaty would require the United States to implement laws as required by the treaty, instead of the national controls that are currently in place. This would also disrupt diplomatic and national security efforts by preventing our government from assisting allies like Taiwan, South Korea, or Israel when they require assistance. I will continue to mount strong opposition to any effort by Sec. Kerry and the State Department to ratify this treaty.”
These amendments were passed 53-46 in the Senate.
The ATT conference , held last March in New York, decided on “nine essential items for a bulletproof treaty.”
While the delegates agree on an international mandate to restrict gun trafficking, the terms of this document will effectively destroy the 2nd Amendment in the US and further restrict gun ownership rights in other sovereign nations.
Outlining the issue with international mandate, the UN says that “the ready availability of weapons and ammunition has led to human suffering, political repression, crime and terror among civilian populations. Irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons can destabilize security in a region, enable the violation of Security Council arms embargoes and contribute to human rights abuses. Importantly, investment is discouraged and development disrupted in countries experiencing conflict and high levels of violence, which also affect their ability to attain the Millennium Development Goals.”
As the “peacekeeper” the UN decries the difficulties in “lax controls on the arms trade” which leads to disruptions in “delivering food aid, improving public health, building safer cities, protecting refugees, eradicating poverty or fighting crime and terrorism.”
In the ATT, the UN defines “all conventional arms ” as “munitions, and parts and components [sic].” To further UN control over gun owners, the treaty explicitly states that “all types of arms trade” should be eradicated which includes private sales of guns whether directly by owner or at a gun show.
This restriction also includes ammunition, gun parts, magazines; as well as the firearm itself. The ATT definition of control arms and this restriction would outlaw all non-federalized forms of gun transfer which would include prison terms as punishment to deter “violators”.
Under possibility of war and the firearm being used to commit war crimes, non-federalized gun transfers cannot be legal under the ATT. Considering America was outlined as a battlefield by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), this provision includes that gun owners in the US have the potential of violating this term simply be virtue of where we live.
Transfer of firearms, parts and ammunition would require “robust criteria” that has international humanitarian based foundations so that nations can force their respective lawmakers to abide by these terms under the guise that this will prevent “organized crime, corrupt practice[s] and gender-based violence and violence against children.”