Post by: Bigshooter on December 03, 2011, 11:05:51 AM
No Gun Control Treaties
Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has drafted a bill that would block U.S. funding to the United Nations if it seeks to implement gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens.
Despite victories by gun owners in elections and legislative battles throughout the country in recent years, on the international front gun control is moving quickly.
Most significantly, in 2012 the UN plans to release a final draft of the Arms Trade Treaty—a treaty that will have severe consequences for American gun owners.
Meetings are held behind close doors, but from information gathered by GOA we believe that the ATT will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition.
The ATT will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.
It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (like the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.
President Obama, not surprisingly, welcomes the treaty. He knows that he is unlikely to get such radical proposals through the Congress, so the UN provides him a backdoor way to enact gun control.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on board and began pushing for the treaty as soon as she was confirmed in her position. “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area,” she said.
Since treaties must be ratified by the Senate, GOA is working continually to buck up weak-kneed Senators who might be pressured to ratify the treaty.
But the House, which controls the nations’ purse strings, can also play a role in killing the ATT (or any other anti-gun treaty, for that matter).
Rep. Joe Walsh’s legislation will cut U.S. funding to the UN if the international body imposes any restrictions on Americans’ gun rights.
This is a huge deal, because without the contributions of the United States, the UN would be crippled financially. According to government reports, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of its “peacekeeping” budget.
American gun owners, in other words, are funding the organization that wants to do away with the Second Amendment!
Rep. Walsh is putting the UN on notice: back off our gun rights.
Entitled the “The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2011,” Rep. Walsh is now seeking original cosponsors to join him in the House. He plans to introduce the bill within the next week.
Rep. Walsh highlights for his House colleagues the necessity of his proposal, noting that:
* It is the constitutional power of Congress to determine United States foreign policy through the ratification of international treaties;
* U.S. Presidents, by signing on to treaties, have opened the door for international organizations to unilaterally regulate the lives of citizens of the United States;
* International and transnational organizations force their rules on people of the United States through conventions, multilateral agreements, and nonratified treaties, such as agreements that affect the private ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens; and
* United States sovereignty is risked by domestic legal applicability of international treaties and executive agreements that have not been voted on and congressionally adopted through formal processes.
Let’s help Rep. Joe Walsh get as many cosponsors as possible. In the process, we’ll find out how many Representatives are willing to stand up to the behemoth United Nations in defense of the Second Amendment.
Please click here to send your Representative a prewritten message.
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=57792501
Post by: sisu on December 03, 2011, 11:34:49 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2011, 11:46:33 AM
Post by: huntrights on December 03, 2011, 08:51:25 PM
Post by: gaddy on December 05, 2011, 04:43:44 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 05, 2011, 05:07:48 PM
Post by: fishinmike on December 08, 2011, 02:59:34 PM
December 8, 2011
Mr. Michael Caillier
2781 Chambers Point Ct
Steilacoom, Washington 98388
Dear Michael,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the right to bear arms and U.S. involvement in the United Nations (U.N.). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on these issues.
Like you, I am committed to preserving Second Amendment Rights for law-abiding Americans. As you may know, I have consistently voted to protect these rights throughout my tenure in Congress.
Global trade in conventional weapons which includes warships, tanks, fighter jets and machine guns among other items remains unregulated. Currently no international standards exist that ensure arms transfers are conducted solely for legitimate purposes. Bilaterally, the United States regularly engages other countries to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and other groups seeking to unsettle regions. However, only a patchwork of national and international restrictions on arms exports and imports oversees this trade. In response, several governments requested the negotiation of an international Arms Trade Treaty through the U.N.
Should such an Arms Trade Treaty be agreed to, signatory countries would agree to refuse to transfers of conventional arms to certain countries or actors if there is a substantial risk of human rights violations, war crimes, or terrorist acts. If adopted at the U.N., each member country would be required to ratify the treaty before it would become binding. In the U.S., responsibility for ratification would fall to the Senate.
The stated goal of an Arms Control Treaty is to deny arms to those countries and actors such as terrorists, human rights abusers, organized criminal enterprises, and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea who abuse them. The Obama Administration has said that the Arms Trade Treaty would be a multilateral opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes. Unlike chemical or biological weapons, an Arms Trade Treaty would not be a ban on conventional weapons. Arms transfers would still be maintained for legitimate commercial enterprise.
Importantly, as a condition of joining the Arms Trade Treaty talks, in October 2009, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton ensured the inclusion a provision in a U.N. General Assembly resolution that gave countries the exclusive authority to regulate arms within their borders thus, explicitly excluding domestic legal arms sales.
At this time, from my review of the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations, it appears that the treaty would not include policies that would violate Americans' Second Amendment rights. With that said, I do appreciate your bringing this treaty to my attention, and I will certainly look into the issue further. While I believe the U.N. is an important mechanism for international cooperation, I would never support any U.N. policy that undermines U.S. sovereignty or violates the rights of American citizens.
Thank you again for bringing this important matter to my attention. Hearing from my constituents is the most important part of my job, so I hope you'll continue to contact me on the issues you care about.
Sincerely,
Adam Smith
Member of Congress
http://adamsmith.house.gov| YouTube | Twitter |E-Newsletter | RSS
If you'd like to receive occasional e-mail updates from my office, please visit my website to sign up - http://adamsmith.house.gov.
Post by: sisu on December 09, 2011, 12:26:07 PM