Author’s Note, 31 July 2012: It appears that, for now, the Arms Trade Treaty is on hold. That doesn’t mean it won’t be pursued in the future, so stay aware.
Author’s Note, 18 July 2012: Since originally writing this article over two years ago, we’ve finally had more information leaking out. I hope to post a full update when true content is really known (such as the treaty text or other relevant items), but until then, keep in mind the age of this article (becoming outdated) and the fact that our public servants are indeed pursuing this treaty. In Article 6:2 of the Constitution we see the following:
2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
To me, this means whatever the content, the treaty—if passed into law—will supersede even our own Constitution. In the meantime, keep an eye on the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs page (“…strengthening peace and security through disarmament”) and the Arms Trade Treaty Conference page for current updates. One question—how does a small-arms treaty with the UN benefit the citizens of the United States (whatever its content)? And now, back to the original article.
Last week my dad mentioned that, though I won’t hear it on main-stream news sources, our beloved Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, had signed a small arms treaty with the UN.
“What!?! Those globalist jerks!”
Wait a minute. Let’s cool off and see what we can find reported on this topic.
A quick search through Google led me to an article posted at one of the NRA’s pages, effectively stating that Ms. Clinton did not, in fact, sign any treaty regarding small arms, nor was such a treaty negotiated or ratified by the Senate.
Good. Case closed.
Well, not quite. Today I noticed all sorts of chatter recirculating on this topic, appearing to emanate from a letter by Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia which was posted at the National Association for Gun Rights. Here’s an excerpt of that letter:
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
- Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
- CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
- BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
- Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
Hmmm. Time to do a bit more digging and see what we can find. The NRA’s page I mentioned earlier is still posted, so no changes there. Maybe the UN has something to say about this?
Yes. Or at least the UN Dispatch does, in an article directly addressing this topic. But first, who is the “UN Dispatch”? Are they really related to the UN? Sort of. On their “about us” page, they disclose they are funded by the United Nations Foundation. Who are they? On their “about UNF” page, they reveal their advocacy of the UN. Here’s an excerpt:
The UN Foundation, a public charity, was created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner’s historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes and activities. We are an advocate for the UN and a platform for connecting people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems.
We help the UN take its best work and ideas to scale—through advocacy, partnerships, constituency building and fund-raising.
Whoa. OK, so let’s get back to the UN Dispatch, who is supported by the UNF, who is an open advocate of the UN and the amazing work they do throughout the world. What do they say? Here’s an excerpt from their statement on this treaty.
Needless to say, the UN does not want to confiscate Americans’ firearms. What many member states do want to do, however, is make it more difficult for guerrilla movements, insurgents and irresponsible governments from easily obtaining small arms. Nine years ago, member states proposed setting in motion a treaty process that would do just that. The Bush administration, though, opposed the treaty process. This was problematic for the cause, as it were, because the United States is among the world’s largest exporter of small arms. Any treaty without the United States on board would not be very effective.
The Obama administration does not share the previous administration’s view of the utility of a small arms trade treaty. This fall, Secretary Clinton made clear that the United States would support the arms trade treaty process. However, understanding that any treaty requires senate passage, the United States set one big condition on the treaty negotiation process: that it proceed by consensus. This means that unanimity is required for all votes, which, in turn, gives the United States an effective veto over the entire process. This has not seem to quell the conspiracy spinners, who apparently remain convinced that the UN is plotting to take Americans’ guns away. But the fact of the matter is, this treaty process is all about restricting the international transfer of small arms to irresponsible end users, like terrorist groups, militias that use child soldiers, or governments that use the weapons to commit terrible human rights abuses.
Oh. Right—nothing to see here. Except that we have a Secretary of State who is in apparent support of such a treaty. And that we don’t know what that treaty says, and probably won’t until it’s on the table for signatures. Perhaps it’s like the recent health care debacle, of which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Wouldn’t that be nice? I just love surprises.