U.S. Withdraws From U.N. Small Arms Treaty

[Fl0und3rz]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/president-trump-announces-withdrawal-from-u-n-small-arms-treaty-video/


 

[pianoman9701]

Well that's awesome.

[SuperX]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

[Dan-o]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

I disagree.

There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.
Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.

[bearpaw]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

I disagree.

There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.
Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.

   Dan-o is 100% correct. The UN wants our guns, read the treaty!

[SuperX]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

I disagree.

There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.
Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.

Save me some time and give me chapter and verse where it says anyone can take your guns.  EDIT: Thought you may have meant newspaper articles not treaty articles so I deleted my comment about only reading part not all of the treaty.  Give me the location of that trampling language and I'll read it and apologize if you're right. 

Funny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction??   

[elkchaser54]

NRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit. 

[Dan-o]

NRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit.

Show me another organization the provides Personal Firearms Liability Insurance or supplemental loss insurance like Armscare.....  especially at their prices.

And it is the NRA that takes on fights all across the nation when states get to wanting to restrict our gun rights.

You don't have to like every decision they make, but to say the NRA doesn't fight for Joe Schmoe with a conceal permit.......?   I disagree.

[huntnphool]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

I disagree.

There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.
Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.

   Dan-o is 100% correct. The UN wants our guns, read the treaty!

 No it's not the UN that wants our guns. Obummer and the libs knew there was little chance in changing our constitution or 2A rights, so they have been looking for ways around it. This treaty was nothing more than a attempt to circumvent the constitution....period!

[bearpaw]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

I disagree.

There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.
Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.

   Dan-o is 100% correct. The UN wants our guns, read the treaty!

 No it's not the UN that wants our guns. Obummer and the libs knew there was little chance in changing our constitution or 2A rights, so they have been looking for ways around it. This treaty was nothing more than a attempt to circumvent the constitution....period!

I agree that Obummer was using the UN, but make no mistake, there are many other countries that would like to see Americans unarmed.

[SuperX]

NRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit.

Show me another organization the provides Personal Firearms Liability Insurance or supplemental loss insurance like Armscare.....  especially at their prices.

And it is the NRA that takes on fights all across the nation when states get to wanting to restrict our gun rights.

You don't have to like every decision they make, but to say the NRA doesn't fight for Joe Schmoe with a conceal permit.......?   I disagree.

The National Field Archery Association (NFAA) has personal liability insurance as part of the membership.  NRA isn't the only one to go to court to fight gun control around the country and anyone could challenge new laws on the 2A, though it would be expensive for an individual.  NRA scaremonger tactics and 'more guns' approach to every problem will be their end (along with their trouble with ethics).

[Special T]

NRA fights for gun manufacturers not Joe schmoe with a conceal carry permit.

Show me another organization the provides Personal Firearms Liability Insurance or supplemental loss insurance like Armscare.....  especially at their prices.

And it is the NRA that takes on fights all across the nation when states get to wanting to restrict our gun rights.

You don't have to like every decision they make, but to say the NRA doesn't fight for Joe Schmoe with a conceal permit.......?   I disagree.

The National Field Archery Association (NFAA) has personal liability insurance as part of the membership.  NRA isn't the only one to go to court to fight gun control around the country and anyone could challenge new laws on the 2A, though it would be expensive for an individual.  NRA scaremonger tactics and 'more guns' approach to every problem will be their end (along with their trouble with ethics).

So my NFAA membership covers me for firearm liability ?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[SuperX]

This isn't a 2A thing, this is to enable our military arms industry to sell guns and land mines and such all around the world.  It is a pro business boon plain and simple.

I disagree.

There are several elements of that treaty that would trample our 2A rights.
Read the treaty - not the articles - and then get back to me if you disagree.

Save me some time and give me chapter and verse where it says anyone can take your guns.  EDIT: Thought you may have meant newspaper articles not treaty articles so I deleted my comment about only reading part not all of the treaty.  Give me the location of that trampling language and I'll read it and apologize if you're right. 

Funny though, not a word about this has come out and the treaty has been in the works for years... maybe it's because both the president and the NRA need a distraction??   

from the ACTUAL treaty this is what it says about the UN wanting our guns:

in the preamble page 1 paragraph 4.
"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system,"

In the principles section, page 2 principle 4.
"Non-Intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations"

Article 1
Object and Purpose
The object of this Treaty is to:
–Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
–Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion
for the purpose of:
–Contributing to international and regional peace, security and stability;
–Reducing human suffering;
–Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among States Parties.

Article 2
Scope
1.This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
(a)Battle tanks;
(b)Armoured combat vehicles;
(c)Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d)Combat aircraft;
(e)Attack helicopters;
(f)Warships;
(g)Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h)Small arms and light weapons


Anyone who reads this as saying the UN will take our personal guns or even our national weapons probably thinks our murder laws are an attempt at the same.

And calling this a 'small arms' treaty in the title is a real stretch unless you consider tanks a small arm.

I can't seem to attach a PDF so you can download from the UN site:  https://thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/ATT_English/ATT_English.pdf?templateId=137253

The treaty is 12 pages with lots of space, it shouldn't take you long to read every word yourself and make your own decision instead of parroting the NRA scare mongering.

[Bob33]

We could always try to mimic other countries like New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, and Germany and abolish gun ownership as a right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/world/gun-laws-australia-uk-germany-canada.html

It took New Zealand just six days to announce an immediate plan to change to the nation’s gun policy after a gunman killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch last week.

On Thursday, a day after the first victims were laid to rest, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced a national ban on all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used in last week’s attack.

Ms. Ardern is expected to encounter little resistance in Parliament. The new law could be in place as soon as April 11.

It is unclear how the weapons ban will be felt in New Zealand, where there are plenty of guns but relatively few murders. Since 2007, gun homicides have been in the single digits every year except in 2009, when there were 11.

But the swift action already stands in stark contrast to the federal response to mass shootings in the United States, which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and is one of only a few countries that start with the assumption that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

After a gunman killed 58 people in Las Vegas in 2017, it took 443 days for the United States to ban bump stocks, the attachments that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire in sustained, rapid bursts, which the gunman used in the attack. And after a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., last year led to a wave of student activism, the House of Representatives voted to require background checks for all gun purchasers in February. It was the first significant gun control bill to clear the chamber in a quarter of a century, but it was unlikely to even be taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Here is a look at how some other countries took action after mass shootings.

In Australia, guns are a privilege, not a right.

After a gunman with a semiautomatic rifle killed 35 people near a popular tourist site in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur, John Howard, Australia’s conservative prime minister at the time, introduced a federal law to officially make guns a privilege, not a right. Gun owners were forced to provide a valid reason for owning a weapon, such as farming or hunting. Licensing rules were tightened, a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases was imposed and a national gun registry was established.

The overhaul also severely restricted firearms, including a ban on almost all automatic and semiautomatic rifles, as well as shotguns. Australia bought back more than 650,000 firearms, to the resentment of many rural gun owners.

Australia has not had a shooting as deadly as the Port Arthur massacre since 1996. Research shows the country also saw a decline in homicide and suicide after the legislative change, although researchers disagree about whether the ban can be credited for reducing homicides, which had already been declining.

Australia is a much smaller country than the United States and also had fewer barriers to enacting gun control: There is no constitutional right to bear arms, for example, and there are no pro-gun lobbying groups with the influence of the National Rifle Association.

In 1987, a gunman in the southern English town of Hungerford killed 16 people, leading to tough British laws that required shotgun owners to register their weapons and prohibited semiautomatic weapons.

Nearly a decade later, another gunman walked into a primary school in Dublane, Scotland, and killed 16 small children and their teacher. The gunman had been granted permits for all four guns used in the shooting, including two semiautomatic pistols.

Afterward, the British government took action to limit gun ownership by civilians. By the end of 1997, Parliament had outlawed the private ownership of nearly all handguns.

In Germany, gun buyers under 25 must certify they are psychologically fit.

In 2002, a 19-year-old expelled student returned to his high school in Erfurt, in eastern Germany, armed, and killed 16 people.

That year, the German government tightened gun laws, including raising the legal age for carrying sports weapons to 21 from 18 and requiring gun buyers under 25 to present certification that they are medically and psychologically fit.

Germany strengthened gun laws even further after another shooting in 2009, when a 17-year-old got his hands on one of his father’s guns and went on a rampage at his school in Winnenden, in southwest Germany, killing 15 people. The new regulations included allowing for random checks on weapons owners.

As of 2015, gun-related crimes were far more unusual in Germany than in the United States.

Canada has had tough restrictions on handguns and automatic weapons since the 1930s. But the rules were expanded to include rifles and shotguns after a gunman with a semiautomatic hunting rifle stormed an engineering school in Montreal in 1989.

Shouting “I hate feminists,” he separated the women from the men and killed 14 female students before turning the gun on himself.

After that shooting, rifles and other long guns had to be registered like handguns and a majority of semiautomatic weapons. Gun owners were also required to obtain a license.

But the long gun registry was unpopular in rural and northern areas, and, over the objections of police forces and some provinces, was abolished in 2012.

Efforts to keep track of rifle and shotgun sales — the majority of firearms in Canada — continue to be much debated. The province of Quebec introduced its own long gun registry last year.

[bearpaw]

Maybe this will help you understand the implications of the UN small arms treaty:

Why the U.S. Must Unsign the Arms Trade Treaty in 2018
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/why-the-us-must-unsign-the-arms-trade-treaty-2018

Defenders of the ATT commonly argue that the treaty sets a minimum standard that is lower than the existing U.S. standard for arms exports.4
“Advancing the Arms Trade Treaty: An Interview with U.S. ATT Negotiator Thomas Countryman,” Arms Control Association, April 1, 2014, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_04/Advancing-the-Arms-Trade-Treaty_An-Interview-With-U-S-ATT-Negotiator-Thomas-Countryman (accessed February 14, 2018).

 They therefore conclude the ATT will have no effect on U.S. policy. This argument is incorrect. The standards at the heart of the ATT are not set in stone: The definitions of crimes against humanity, IHL, and IHRL will evolve over time. By signing the ATT, the U.S. has committed itself to changing its practices as the standards that define the ATT change. Were the U.S. to ratify the ATT, that commitment would be even firmer. The ATT is, in effect, an escalator: Once you step onto it, you are no longer in control of your direction of travel.

For example, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reportedly intends to start international negotiations to end the “use of explosives in urban areas.”5
Tom Miles, “Exclusive: U.N. Chief Plans Major Disarmament Push But U.S. Skeptical,” Reuters, February 7, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-arms-exclusive/exclusive-u-n-chief-plans-major-disarmament-push-but-u-s-skeptical-idUSKBN1FR1SF (accessed February 14, 2018).

 If these negotiations change the definition of IHL as it is understood by nations, scholars, and lawyers, then the meaning of the ATT will also have changed, as will the policies the U.S. has to follow to implement the treaty. It is important to remember that, at least in intent, treaties are forever. The question the U.S. must always consider is not merely whether a treaty is bad now, but whether it could be used—or could evolve—in ways detrimental to U.S. interests in the future.

In fact, progressive activists openly acknowledge that they want to use international law and evolving international norms to change U.S. policy, U.S. law, and even existing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. In 2012, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, a former Dean of Yale Law School and a renowned progressive legal activist, stated approvingly that “twenty-first century international lawmaking has become a swirling interactive process whereby norms get ‘uploaded’ from one country into the international system, and then ‘downloaded’ elsewhere into another country’s laws or even a private actor’s internal rules.”6
Ted R. Bromund, “The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the Gun Grab,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, March 5, 2013, https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-un-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-gun-grab.

Under this approach, the U.S. government is not merely—or even not primarily—supposed to transmit the choices of the American people into the world at large: It is supposed to receive the views of the world at large and transmit them to (or enforce them upon) the American people. In the context of the ATT, that “swirling interactive process” could be used to “download” norms that would change the meaning of the Second Amendment or the definition of IHL.