BOHICA: Kerry to sign UN Arms Treaty, says Reuters, Fox

[Dave Workman]

:complain: :angry:

Kerry to sign UN Arms Treaty today; Inhofe says DOA in Senate

Secretary of State John Kerry will reportedly sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, a document that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) warned in a letter yesterday will not be ratified by the Senate, according to Fox News and the Daily Caller.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[unklekippy]

I know that an international treaty does not trump The Constitution, but my concern is that we will see the end of imported guns and ammo. I am a fan of Mausers and the AK platform, among other imported arms. I am also concerned that the supply of something like 5.45x39 will dry up. I should be fine for a while, but what if I need to fend off the SECOND wave of a North Korean invasion?

 

[Don H]

US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: Press Room - Ranking Member's Press

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 fundamentally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, law, and practice," said Corker.

Full text of the letter is included below and in the attached document.

Dear President Obama,

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.

As you know, 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.

Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.

Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, 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.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Corker
Ranking Member

 

[Dave Workman]

I know that an international treaty does not trump The Constitution, but my concern is that we will see the end of imported guns and ammo. I am a fan of Mausers and the AK platform, among other imported arms. I am also concerned that the supply of something like 5.45x39 will dry up. I should be fine for a while, but what if I need to fend off the SECOND wave of a North Korean invasion?

Who'd you vote for for US Senate?

Send them a message with this information, without the North Korean invasion sarcasm.

 

[DMax]

The Limbaugh Theorem on full display with kerry signing and not obammy.

 

[Caveman Jim]

It's all just smoke and mirrors, Owebamma wants to look tough while in the big house after he belched BS about a red line that he drew in Syria. All this is BS and nothing more because he has shown the world that the US lacks credibility!!!

 

[Bam]

IF this actually meant anything, we would be one step closer to a civil war.

 

[U201491]

:complain: :angry:

Kerry to sign UN Arms Treaty today; Inhofe says DOA in Senate

Secretary of State John Kerry will reportedly sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, a document that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) warned in a letter yesterday will not be ratified by the Senate, according to Fox News and the Daily Caller.

<broken link removed>

The worst part of this is they will think they have a foot in the door. The Democrats will also help them think that.
The foot needs to be removed the first time they slide it in. This can NEVER stand.

 

[drew]

Kerry can sign it but it doesn't make the treaty effective. Maybe Reid will bring it up for a vote to get some egg on Captain Zero's face. It won't pass though. I do enjoy his sad/angry sourpuss face.

 

[Misterbill]

Kerry can sign a treaty that insists every man has to wear a pink tutu on Sundays for all I care. It doesn't mean a GD thing unless the pres signs it and the Senate ratifies it by a 2/3 majority.

Look, there is a reason why the GOP needs to get off the crazy bandwagon and go back to its roots of being a civil-rights based party of non-intervention and small government.

If they can't as a party stop slaiming that homosexuals are all pedophiles just waiting to destroy the marriages of their straight neighbors, that an egg fertilized 30 seconds ago has the exact same moral standing as a newborn child, that birth control is evil and more wars in the middle-east is good and torture is wonderful, they're going to keep making purple states like Washington bluer and bluer.

It's not 1980. Stop with the culture war and cold war crap and address actual problems with ACTUAL solutions that anyone with an IQ over room temperature will take seriously. The answers are all out there. They just keep getting ignored in order to cement cred on who hates Obama the most and get the people in DEEP RED states all warm and fuzzy.

Meanwhile everyone else is left with a choice between crazy and kinda sane but crappy. Most will choose the latter, which just gets us more liberals in the Senate.

 

[unklekippy]

Kerry can sign a treaty that insists every man has to wear a pink tutu on Sundays for all I care. It doesn't mean a GD thing unless the pres signs it and the Senate ratifies it by a 2/3 majority.

Look, there is a reason why the GOP needs to get off the crazy bandwagon and go back to its roots of being a civil-rights based party of non-intervention and small government.

If they can't as a party stop slaiming that homosexuals are all pedophiles just waiting to destroy the marriages of their straight neighbors, that an egg fertilized 30 seconds ago has the exact same moral standing as a newborn child, that birth control is evil and more wars in the middle-east is good and torture is wonderful, they're going to keep making purple states like Washington bluer and bluer.

It's not 1980. Stop with the culture war and cold war crap and address actual problems with ACTUAL solutions that anyone with an IQ over room temperature will take seriously. The answers are all out there. They just keep getting ignored in order to cement cred on who hates Obama the most and get the people in DEEP RED states all warm and fuzzy.

Meanwhile everyone else is left with a choice between crazy and kinda sane but crappy. Most will choose the latter, which just gets us more liberals in the Senate.

That's too bad that Obama voters believe Republican's are crazy for believing in right and wrong when the Democrat's threw it out long ago.

I have no interest in those that abandon principles for votes. Those are tactics of the left.

If the choice is "crazy" or "kinda sane but crappy" and you think that the D's are "kind sane", we aren't the ones with the problem.

And, as you've been told before, attempts at taking our rights are just as disgusting as successes. Or do you sue the guy that raped your daughter and invite the one that only TRIED REALLY HARD to dinner?

No thanks. I'll stick with knowing right and wrong. I will not let someone tell me that those who abandoned any sort of principle decades ago deserve a vote. Democrat's are the insane ones. Cruz, Paul and Lee just might give us a chance if people stop believing that the guys believing in right and wrong are the crazy ones. Total absurdity.

 

[unklekippy]

Who'd you vote for for US Senate?

Send them a message with this information, without the North Korean invasion sarcasm.

Hey! I use the sarcasm in these threads, not in a serious letter. I can write a very convincing letter and have fine command of the English language.

Still, I will send a letter(without the giggles) to the D's that finally stole the good sense of my fellow Oregonian's and the R's that I voted for in a losing effort. If and when we need a recall, I want everyone involved to know why, not just the Democrat that will undoubtedly have the nerve to blame the NRA for their vile, disgusting beliefs and for their ouster after attacking the very document they swore to uphold and protect.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Sadly..I can see the cargo ships loaded to the brim with my el-cheapo 7.62x39 turning around and sailing toward Syria instead.

Well, guess its time to get into ARs.

In all seriousness.. An american ammunition manufacturer should really capitalize on the 5.45 and 7.62x39 and get the ball rolling here. Yeah there's some here and there but its never packed on the shelves like other brands. So without out cheap imported stuff.. They should make a high end and low end. Steel and brass, in mass quantities. Surplus wont last forever and as we saw in the 70's and 80's the 7.62x39 and 5.45 will be more of a novelty than anything if not properly produced and distributed. Maybe even rapidly increased in value like we saw with the ARs.

Which really sucks because I could pretty much fill a shipping container with all the AK mags Ive acquired.. I just cant load them with anything but dreams of good times past. :/

 

[Bacchus]

Everybody who claimed a year (or two or three) ago that this administration would support a UN treaty infringing on guns was right, including the NRA.

Everybody who claimed (even on this web site) that this would not happen, lied.

 

[U201491]

Here is the primary danger of this if it were to pass the Senate.

Gun registry 'scheme' among concerns over UN arms treaty | Fox News

Gun registry &#39;scheme&#39; among concerns over UN arms treaty | Fox News

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State John Kerry signed an international treaty on arms regulation Wednesday, angering conservative lawmakers and rattling the National Rifle Association despite claims that the treaty won't infringe on gun rights.

So what's all the fuss about?

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, would regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms. The U.S. is the largest arms exporter in the world, and Kerry's signature was seen as a significant step in pushing it forward.

Supporters say the treaty sends a bold global message advocating the first-ever moral standards on the cross-border trade linked to human rights violations around the world. But to some on U.S. soil, the treaty treads into dangerous territory and could step on the constitutional rights of Americans.

They point in part to language, at the very beginning of the document, that includes "small arms and light weapons" and worry this could cover firearms owned by Americans.

According to the treaty, the international sale of weapons would be linked to the human rights records of buyers; it requires the countries that sign on to establish regulations for selling weapons. This has raised concern that the treaty could be used as an excuse to push new gun laws.

But the treaty also advocates keeping data of arms purchases, which the NRA and other groups say could be used as an international log to keep tabs on gun owners.

The record-keeping section in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) encourages members to "maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2," which include battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, warships and small arms and light weapons.

Further, those records should be kept for a minimum of 10 years, the treaty states -- which NRA leader Wayne LaPierre has referred to as "nothing more than gun registration by a different name."

Because the treaty's language is so broad, LaPierre has said that "manufacturers of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters."

Chris Cox, the executive director for the group's Institute for Legislative Action, says the treaty "threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme."

The treaty also calls for potential arms deals to be evaluated on whether the buyer would be able to carry out crimes against humanity or other war crimes, including genocide. It also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they can be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

What it doesn't do is regulate the domestic sale of weapons in any country. And Kerry said Wednesday: "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."

Even though the ATT was created to monitor the global arms trade and essentially shame countries into revealing alliances by making them document who they sold weapons to, there is no clear-cut punishment for those who don't.

There are many parts of the treaty that are also open to interpretation. For example, the international pact contains no language on how to handle countries who loan or gift weapons to others.

Part of the concern with the treaty, among critics, is its vagueness.

In April, the U.N. General Assembly voted to approve the ATT 154-3. Those voting in favor included the U.S., Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Twenty-three countries abstained from voting, including China and Russia. Several others said the human rights criteria in the treaty was too vague.
Iran, North Korea and Syria voted against the treaty.

Fifty countries need to ratify the treaty for it to enter into force. So far, only six have and the likelihood of it being approved by the U.S. Senate is slim. It takes two-thirds of the 100 lawmakers in the Senate to win ratification.

The domestic battle heating up over the treaty is what is likely to give the Obama administration the most trouble.

In a letter to President Obama, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said the treaty raised significant legislative questions and warned the Obama administration against taking any action to implement the treaty without the Senate's advice or consent.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, was among 35 senators who earlier this year co-sponsored a resolution expressing concerns about the dangers of the treaty and how it might infringe the constitutional rights of Americans.

"I'd like to see the U.N. try to send inspectors to the Texas State Rifle Association's annual gathering," he said in a statement after Kerry signed the treaty. "Law-abiding Texans who are in the market for an imported shotgun, pistol, or rifle out to be very concerned by the administration's move today."

 

[wichaka]

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it...even if they try to do something within the states with it.

aper:

 

[U201491]

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it...even if they try to do something within the states with it.

aper:

That goes against staying vigilant.

That is also why the country is in the state it is in.
Whether it will have an effect or not,
We will watch every move the administration makes !
The UN has been trying to get its teeth in our Constitution for a long time. Well they, thanks to the bum in the whitehouse, now have the toe inserted..
Now we must observe them to know when to cut that toe off and slam the door shut.
Only the left wants us to close our eyes to this crap.

 

[Dave Workman]

Everybody who claimed a year (or two or three) ago that this administration would support a UN treaty infringing on guns was right, including the NRA.

Everybody who claimed (even on this web site) that this would not happen, lied.

Bacchus: It isn't so much that they lied, it's that they are dangerously delusional. Democrats and (gasp, belch) liberal gun owners have become apologists for this administration. They are living in denial and trying to get the rest of us to move into their neighborhood.

And perhaps they are also trying to figure out a way to avoid admitting that they were WRONG.

 

[PiratePast40]

In order to write intelligent and informed letters to our representatives, we should be armed with some facts. To that end, I have some questions about what the treaty actually covers. Suppose the US and Austria ratified the treaty. Would that mean that we could no longer purchase Glocks in the US? What about the other foreign manufacturers like Springfield, Beretta, Taurus, Rock Island etc.? Would the surplus M-1's in South Korea be forever banned in US or any other country? What about foreign made ammo?

Is it possible that the Obama administration is covering their butts by saying the US will never again try an arms deal to rebels, like the one that was botched in Benghazi? What about the F-16s that we're selling to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt? Would that deal stop also?

 

[Bacchus]

It isn't so much that they lied, it's that they are dangerously delusional

Cool! They're back on my Christmas card list!

Even if I am getting the government they deserve.