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

[pianoman9701]

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??   

You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.

I heard about Trump's NRA speech within an hour of it taking place. 

Me too. the treaty has been out since 2013, it was 'symbolically signed' by Sec of State John Kerry.  It hasn't gotten any attention until Trump made it a talking point.  the only benefactors are arms manufacturers and international arms dealers based in the US.

You don't believe there are any potential benefits to the individual citizen by not signing the treaty? Sovereignty, protection of personal information? We have a situation in WA right now where anti-gun groups are trying to seize and reveal the personal information of anyone who bought a bump stock. Think about this kind of BS on an international scale. My fear about us signing that treaty which specifically targets small arms would set us up down the road for encroachment on our other rights and set a precedent of giving the UN more power over the individual. We have a lot of politicians who believe that should be the way as it is.

[SuperX]

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??   

You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.

I heard about Trump's NRA speech within an hour of it taking place. 

Me too. the treaty has been out since 2013, it was 'symbolically signed' by Sec of State John Kerry.  It hasn't gotten any attention until Trump made it a talking point.  the only benefactors are arms manufacturers and international arms dealers based in the US.

You don't believe there are any potential benefits to the individual citizen by not signing the treaty? Sovereignty, protection of personal information? My fear about us signing that treaty which specifically targets small arms would set us up down the road for encroachment on our other rights and set a precedent of giving the UN more power over the individual. We have a lot of politicians who believe that should be the way as it is.

Are you trying to gaslight me?  I read the treaty, you are making things up.

[pianoman9701]

Sure. That's what I'm doing. I don't believe we should be signatories to any UN treaties. I don't think we should be part of that organization. You evidently think it's good for the US. We'll continue to disagree on that.

[Cougartail]

Super X is either young or hasn't been paying attention. The line "eradicating the illicit trade in conventional arms" was what "Fast and Furious" was all about. Back in that era they tried to sell the idea that the US was the source of most of Mexico's illegal firearms. They did this with tricky language. "Of all the guns seized and identified most came from America". The problem here is that the majority seized couldn't be identified because of no serial numbers due to Russian and China's lack of stamping them. (Along with other countries.)

If you were paying attention (which Super X obviously wasn't..) the guns the government trafficked into Mexico wasn't the politically correct type but those considered "assault rifles". The 2nd Amendment protection of this class of weapon is disputed by the left as individuals don't need them for hunting or personal protection thus we don't have a "right" to them. (A complete misconception by people who know nothing of history or the English language!)


So the narrative was, we aren't doing our part in controlling small arms of the "Military Style" and violating the treaty. Thus we were to ban the sale of these types of weapons and register them.


They will tell you they were tracking the guns to see who was getting them but in fact they were setting up news stories and fall guys for selling their justification for more gun control on Ar's, AKs, and that class of weapon.


If the far left nutjobs didn't have uneducated gullible followers they would powerless..

[SuperX]

Sure. That's what I'm doing. I don't believe we should be signatories to any UN treaties. I don't think we should be part of that organization. You evidently think it's good for the US. We'll continue to disagree on that.

I think the UN has been overall good since it was formed.  It's a council of nations, so not some sort of overlord.  They'll never be in charge of domestic guns in the US, and have no authority (nor do they seek it) to take our guns.   Of course if you believe anything the left says is a lie or anything the UN does is anti american, I can't stop you.

[SuperX]

Super X is either young or hasn't been paying attention. The line "eradicating the illicit trade in conventional arms" was what "Fast and Furious" was all about. Back in that era they tried to sell the idea that the US was the source of most of Mexico's illegal firearms. They did this with tricky language. "Of all the guns seized and identified most came from America". The problem here is that the majority seized couldn't be identified because of no serial numbers due to Russian and China's lack of stamping them. (Along with other countries.)

first, I have been at this for a long time so not young.  Also paid attention but can't draw the line between the AAT and an ATF sting operation well enough to see why you think it's relevant.

If you were paying attention (which Super X obviously wasn't..) the guns the government trafficked into Mexico wasn't the politically correct type but those considered "assault rifles". The 2nd Amendment protection of this class of weapon is disputed by the left as individuals don't need them for hunting or personal protection thus we don't have a "right" to them. (A complete misconception by people who know nothing of history or the English language!)

There was no gun trafficking by our government it was an operation to let illegal gun purchasers 'walk' to see where the guns ended up.   Again, how is this relevant to the UN or the treaty we're talking about?  You make vast assumptions based on your own theories that don't hold water.

So the narrative was, we aren't doing our part in controlling small arms of the "Military Style" and violating the treaty. Thus we were to ban the sale of these types of weapons and register them.

OK so this is the data you think applies to the ATT?  That some people had a narrative that we should register guns.  nothing of what you say is in the ATT and the argument you make is specious

They will tell you they were tracking the guns to see who was getting them but in fact they were setting up news stories and fall guys for selling their justification for more gun control on Ar's, AKs, and that class of weapon.

Your alternative facts are orthogonal to the discussion

If the far left nutjobs didn't have uneducated gullible followers they would powerless..

I voted for Ford, Reagan and Bush, which obviously makes me a nut job or gullible, just not left.

[pianoman9701]

Sure. That's what I'm doing. I don't believe we should be signatories to any UN treaties. I don't think we should be part of that organization. You evidently think it's good for the US. We'll continue to disagree on that.

I think the UN has been overall good since it was formed.  It's a council of nations, so not some sort of overlord.  They'll never be in charge of domestic guns in the US, and have no authority (nor do they seek it) to take our guns.   Of course if you believe anything the left says is a lie or anything the UN does is anti american, I can't stop you.

The UN has survived on the wealth of the US since its inception, yet does its best to make the US look bad or create committees and programs that pander to progressive, whole world philosophies. For example, including Iran in the council on human rights and not including Israel in the committee on Middle Eastern affairs is at the best, absurd. It has become the mouthpiece of the apologists and the far left and we should have nothing to do with them. Orange Man bad, Ayatollah good.

[SuperX]

Guys, I'm out of this thread, I am done defending my original statement and don't appreciate the ad hominum turn this discussion has started to take.

You can lead a man to water but you can't make him think.

see you in the woods!

[pianoman9701]

Only your way or the highway. Nice!

[bearpaw]

I voted for Ford, Reagan and Bush, which obviously makes me a nut job or gullible, just not left.

So with that said, I'm assuming you voted for Hillary since Trump isn't on your list above. I don't understand any gun owner voting for Hillary, she also wants to restrict the 2nd Amendment, it was one of the first things she campaigned on?

[Fl0und3rz]

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??   

You might need to expand the perspectives of news channels you consume.

I heard about Trump's NRA speech within an hour of it taking place. 

Me too. the treaty has been out since 2013, it was 'symbolically signed' by Sec of State John Kerry.  It hasn't gotten any attention until Trump made it a talking point.  the only benefactors are arms manufacturers and international arms dealers based in the US.

Which is it?  Not a word has come out? Or word has been out since 2013? It is not as if people stopped being opposed just because MSNBCNN doesn't say anything about a past treaty.


You seem to be very invested in your anti-NRA narrative. 

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.

This is not only disingenuous, it reveals your bias.  Where are you getting such bias?


In fact, more in-depth critiques and analyses have been posted here, without reference to the NRA.

And the mere 12 pages of the ATT necessarily implicates larger UN frameworks for arms control as has been explained in those other critiques.

For instance:

A final problem with the ATT is that—in reality, though not in law—the treaty does not stand on its own. The activists, many U.N. member nations, and the U.N. itself seek to intermingle the ATT with a number of other political instruments in the field of conventional arms, including the U.N.’s International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) and the U.N.’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA). If commitments made under the ATT come to be understood in light of the PoA or ISACS—both of which are closely associated with domestic firearms regulation—the meaning of the ATT could change dramatically, even if its wording remains unaltered.

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/why-the-us-must-unsign-the-arms-trade-treaty-2018

For example, from the ISACS:

small arm
any man-portable lethal weapon designed for individual use that expels or launches, is designed to
expel or launch, or may be readily converted to expel or launch a shot, bullet or projectile by the action
of an explosive
NOTE 1 Includes, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns,
assault rifles and light machine guns, as well as their parts, components and ammunition.
NOTE 2 Excludes antique small arms and their replicas.

http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/0120-en.pdf


This seems to makes clear that small arms are indeed implicated, not just tanks, as you mislead.  The point that the NRA makes is that export nations are required to ensure import nations' importers retain end user certificates for small arms, which, as you'll understand, poses a firearms registration risk, which the NRA and 2A advocates have historically and rightfully resisted. (If you don't understand, confiscation historically follows registration.)


The problem for the NRA, and anyone making a two second sound bite argument about ATT, 2A, and backdoor registration is made clear in that Heritage passage.  At present, "end user," for commercial sale importers is the importer itself, not the ultimate citizen recipient.  Look it up in that ISACS terms pdf.  Heritage makes clear that could change without ATT amendment.


Otherwise, it appears that ATT is largely considered aspirational only and a failure.  If it is a failure, there is no compelling reason to remain, and, thus, this was a good move by Trump, and a benefit brought to advocates of the 2A by the NRA.


It seems clear that you would like it to not be a success for the NRA, but you are disappointed, because it is what it is.

[Fl0und3rz]

Here is NRA's statement at the time.

The most pressing international threat to U.S. gun owners is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Among its most egregious provisions, the treaty encourages national recordkeeping requirements for “end users” of covered arms (including firearms), and suggests that national governments share such records. Further, the ATT compels countries to make arms import and export decisions based upon a trading partner’s willingness to abide by the treaty’s requirements, which could isolate the United States from legitimate trade in arms or force it to adopt restrictions detrimental to Second Amendment rights. During the drafting phase, NRA vigorously advocated for civilian firearm ownership be removed from the treaty’s scope. Those recommendations were ignored, meaning U.S. firearms policy could become the rest of the world’s business and subject to its approval, on pain of trade restrictions if it doesn’t meet “international norms.”

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/internationalun-gun-control-issues/?page=4&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contributor=0&contentBuckets=8166%2C8176%2C8177%2C8178%2C8195%2C8180%2C8188%2C8190%2C8189%2C8181%2C8183%2C8185%2C8191%2C8182%2C8186%2C8192%2C8194%2C8187&geo=

I see nothing particularly scare-mongery in that particular statement, especially if you are a not a reseller-importer.

[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!

Here is NRA's statement at the time.

The most pressing international threat to U.S. gun owners is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Among its most egregious provisions, the treaty encourages national recordkeeping requirements for “end users” of covered arms (including firearms), and suggests that national governments share such records. Further, the ATT compels countries to make arms import and export decisions based upon a trading partner’s willingness to abide by the treaty’s requirements, which could isolate the United States from legitimate trade in arms or force it to adopt restrictions detrimental to Second Amendment rights. During the drafting phase, NRA vigorously advocated for civilian firearm ownership be removed from the treaty’s scope. Those recommendations were ignored, meaning U.S. firearms policy could become the rest of the world’s business and subject to its approval, on pain of trade restrictions if it doesn’t meet “international norms.”

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/internationalun-gun-control-issues/?page=4&state=0&startDate=&endDate=&search=&contributor=0&contentBuckets=8166%2C8176%2C8177%2C8178%2C8195%2C8180%2C8188%2C8190%2C8189%2C8181%2C8183%2C8185%2C8191%2C8182%2C8186%2C8192%2C8194%2C8187&geo=

I see nothing particularly scare-mongery in that particular statement, especially if you are a not a reseller-importer.

 Bingo!

[grundy53]

.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Fl0und3rz]

Longer huntnphool.

https://www.thediplomad.com/2012/07/the-un-arms-treaty-aka-lawyer-full.html