U.N. arms treaty won’t infringe on Second Amendment rights, Heritage scholar says

Don’t panic, gun owners. The United Nations isn’t trying to stage a “gun grab” or limit your Second Amendment rights with their Arms Trade Treaty, according to an expert with The Heritage Foundation.

“I don’t think that the ATT is a gun confiscation measure for a variety of reasons,” Ted Bromund, a Heritage senior research fellow in Anglo-American relations, said on Tuesday. “First, because I don’t regard that as within the bounds of possibility in the United States and secondly, because that is not what the text says.”

During a Heritage Blogger Briefing, Bromund recapped the current status of the treaty, something he has been covering extensively, including the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in July of this year. In summary, he said the treaty is designed to provide common guidelines about international import, export and transfer of arms. Bromund stressed that people incorrectly view the ATT as a small arms treaty, when in reality it covers everything weapons-related — “from bullets to battleships.”

The treaty is worrisome for other reasons, however. Bromund noted that most of the member nations, and the U.N. as a whole, are supportive of harsher gun control laws than what the U.S. implements. Many of the member states of the U.N. will continue to push the definition of the ATT “in ways that will be, at best, uncomfortable for the United States,” he said.

While the language of the treaty might sound good, in practice it would only apply to the U.S., Israel and a few other nations, according to Bromund. He said proponents of the treaty believe its passage would cause Russia, Iran, China and other nations to behave better in the international community. Bromund said this is a false hope and compared the ATT to trying to stop murder by giving it a more detailed definition.

“It’s not going to the trick,” he said. “This is an enforcement problem, not a law or a treaty problem.”

Since the U.S. is the largest and most responsible arms dealer in the world, other countries would brandish the treaty as a weapon — pun intended — to cut into U.S. arms trade revenue.Bromund said all eyes would be turned on the U.S., watching for any small infractions, instead of looking at countries that are irresponsible with their weapons trade. The language of the treaty is also vague, further leaving the U.S. vulnerable to crackdowns on their arms trade.

Though Bromund strongly advises against signing the treaty — which should be finalized in March — he fully expects President Obama to sign it during his second term, an act that would make the U.S. legally bound to comply with its requirements, with or without Senate consideration, Bromund said.

As a final caution, Bromund stressed focusing on “the long haul” instead of panicking over individual incidents.

So holster your guns and don’t go off half-cocked. This is just one battle in a long war.

Comments

33 Responses to “U.N. arms treaty won’t infringe on Second Amendment rights, Heritage scholar says”

  1. Spencer60 says:

    Given the international nature of manufacturing today, giving a UN bureaucracy control over imports and exports of firearms, ammunition and parts is ludicrous.

    Just an example, but given that Springfield makes their extremely popular XDm line of pistols in Croatia, the UN could arbitrarily limit the number of firearms Springfield ‘imports’ into the US.

    The rules and regulations alone will drive the cost of importing firearms and ammo up significantly, which I’m sure is exactly the idea.

    As for effectiveness, this treaty completely exempts governments, who are the ones supplying weapons to conflict areas.

    If anyone thinks warlords in Congo are supplying their troops with firearms from WalMart or Bass Pro Shop, they are sadly mistaken.

    This treaty is a disaster for American firearms owners, which is exactly why the Obama administration, with it’s gun control industry backers, is pushing so hard for it’s passage.

    • PistolPaknPoppy says:

      Right on & RIGHT ON…
      Anyone that reads this…
      Anyone that has ANY common sense…
      Anyone that has half a brain…

      Knows that this IS about…
      …TAKING OUR GUNS…

      …From my cold dead hands…
      My weapon is my American Express…
      …I NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT…

      ……………Enough said!

    • AL, Orange Park, FL says:

      i fully agree with spencer60, he’s right on the money
      anything that touches our guns and ammo is a “move” against the 2nd pure and simple!

    • AL, Orange Park, FL says:

      fully agree
      anything that touches or “moves” against the 2nd is gun control pure and simple

  2. LOL says:

    LOLOL!!! There’s no such thing as a “scholar” from AEI! that would be oxyMORONIC!

    UN is after YOUR GUNS PERIOD!

    Wake the hell up sheeple!

  3. James says:

    It is established US law that the US Constitution is always the highest law of the land. Parts of a treaty that conflicts with the constitution are considered invalid. Also, the US is NOT legally bound until a treaty is signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.

    • jonolan says:

      James,

      Depending upon the verbiage of any RUDs applied to the treaty ratification, we might not be bound in any real sense by it even it were signed and ratified.

    • Spencer60 says:

      The claim that it will conflict with the Second Amendment in a legal manner is largely a distraction. That’s too big a goal for the gun control industry and the UN lackeys behind this treaty.

      The key is the pressure this treaty will allow them to put on the US politicians to implement and support more repressive gun control laws.

      Using the UN as cover, they can disrupt the US firearms industry to the point that they would find it difficult to be profitable, or even to survive.

      The UN bureaucracy in charge would be able to institute unilateral trade boycotts that would have devastating effects on the US economy if we don’t ‘comply’ with their dictates.

      Between the pressure on the US economy, and the the political pressure, the gun control industry would have two major tools to use in forcing their beliefs into law.

    • auhunter says:

      The current treaty being proposed doesn’t require Senate approval, all it needs sis the President’s signature, and once signed, we re bound to every word unless they are in contradiction to the Constitution. You can bet that Obama is going to find someway to get around that. Keep plenty of powder dry.

  4. Lee says:

    Have you ever heard, ” Give them an inch and they will take a mile”. It might sound like it don’t effect you but it will.

  5. BHirsh says:

    Whether or not the treaty would supercede constitutional protections is a nebulous affair at best.

    The issue is much too vital to be left to chance. Anybody who witnessed the Venezuelan elections just held in the United States, complete with the hideous way the PTB have cut off any remedy to redress it (no one who matters is even talking about it), given the cavalier modus of the current administration with regard to acts of questionable constitutionality, should not be regarded as a “tinfoil warrior” for being skeptical of this monstrosity.

    Assurances that the treaty will not be used (or, to be generous, misused) to finally squash the individual right to arms fail of their own lack of credulity.

  6. BHirsh says:

    Whether or not the treaty would supercede constitutional protections is a nebulous affair at best.

    The issue is much too vital to be left to chance. Anybody who witnessed the Venezuelan elections just held in the United States, complete with the hideous way the PTB have cut off any remedy to redress it (no one who matters is even talking about it), given the cavalier modus of the current administration with regard to acts of questionable constitutionality, should not be regarded as a “tinfoil warrior” for being skeptical of this monstrosity.

    Assurances that the treaty will not be used (or, to be generous, misused) to finally squash the individual right to arms fail because of their own lack of credulity.

    • Ron says:

      Obama will spike the supreme court with more of his “liberals like the last 2 he appointed then he will declare martial law and the court wi;; back him to take down the 2nd amendment. thats when the joint chief must meet and vote to arrest him and hold him for trial in a military court . as the commander in chief comites treason

    • Ron says:

      Obama will spike the supreme court with more of his “liberals like the last 2 he appointed then he will declare martial law and the court wi;; back him to take down the 2nd amendment. thats when the joint chief must meet and vote to arrest him and hold him for trial in a military court . as the commander in chief commites treason

  7. Phil says:

    The UN can pass regulations in this treaty that coulud seriously harm 2nd Amendment rights.

    Not sure where he’s getting his facts from either. The treaty that will be proposed in March hasn’t been written yet.

  8. Phil says:

    The UN can pass regulations in this treaty that could seriously harm 2nd Amendment rights.

    Not sure where he’s getting his facts from either. The treaty that will be proposed in March hasn’t been written yet.

  9. William Redmon says:

    Where can we get a copy of this treaty and read and make up our own minds?
    Do I trust the U.N.? NO.

  10. There is no legal force to the treaty just from the President’s signature! Read the Constitution. Until the Senate ratifies a treaty, the President’s – or any other executive branch signature – is a mere diplomatic gesture. I find it sad that a conservative commentator has bought this propaganda lie.
    Secondly, the proposed UN treaty IS a small-arms treaty – its progenitors have stated explicitly that it is intended to plug a perceived “gap” in the system of UN-administered arms treaties (which have been so effective at preventing wars and genocide that they deserve to be expanded and strengthened) so that they cover small arms, too. I’ve read the comments that only illicit arms sales will be suppressed, but you need to remember that in the eyes of a U.N. bureaucrat, all sales of weapons to private owners are illegitimate unless specifically sanctioned by government, and the only entity with a right to bear arms is government. By this “international” standard, all private firearms are eligible for confiscation and all private arms sales are illegitimate. Domestic prohibition and confiscation will not happen immediately, of course, but the first step will be a cutoff of imports of foreign-made firearms and ammunition into the USA for other than governmental purposes, followed by an embargo of exports of firearms and ammunition made by manufacturers or handled by distributors who don’t toe the U.N. line.
    Make no mistake: regardless of its wording and of the reassuring comments by people who should know better, this treaty is a threat. Remember: once ratified, a treaty becomes the law of the land, on an equal footing with the Constitution!

  11. Spencer43 says:

    Yes, that’s right, lull all the sheep into complacency, then sneak it past them.

    If it’s going to have no effect on us, then why sign it at all? I don’t buy that it only affects battleships and the like.

    And, why the heck are we allowing a bunch of countries with such appalling human rights violations any say in how we manage things here?

    The UN should be abolished and dismantled.

  12. scrambo says:

    I am more comfortable not trusting any scholars they have all proven to be dumber than dirt. The UN and our Gov-ment is after your guns, anyway you cut it…I am more worried about two more liberal supreme court justices than I am the UN…The UN can pound salt in their bloody arse for all I care…

  13. allen says:

    “First, because I don’t regard that as within the bounds of possibility in the United States and secondly, because that is not what the text says.”

    and that’s not what the 2nd amendment says either…but you get the right judge wit hthe right mental gymnastics, it says something a lot different.

  14. Pete Wenzel, Esq says:

    This entire debacle is an outrage!
    According to the Constitution, ONLY THE SENATE can approve a treaty. If Husein actually SIGNS this idiocy, it will be another illegal act in his long litany of illegal acts.
    Question: Where would that leave Husein for supplying weapons to the Libyans, Syrians, ad nauseum? The man is an ass!
    His ONE AND ONLY reason for even CONSIDERING to sign this blasphemy on freedom is to attack THE ARMED AMERICAN CITIZENS!
    Much like his support of the UN favored LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty), which incidentally declares our national boundaries STOPPING AT THE WATER’S EDGE (therefore allowing ANY other nation to say, drill for oil 100′ from our beaches, or allowing the Chinese and Russians to “park” warships within ANY navigable waterway of our country), he is dead set on ruining our nation by DESTROYING our SOVEREIGNTY!
    We had our chance to rid ourselves of this Anti-American Pariah, and the American Public BLEW IT because they were just too damned worried about their own particular asses to ensure that our nation STAYS FREE!
    The “American Public” has proven itself to be NOTHING MORE than SWINE IN HUMAN GUISE! Greedy swine at that!
    IMPEACH THE OATHBREAKER AND LIAR!!!

  15. swampsniper says:

    Can anyone really believe that Barack Obama will not spin and exploit any point of the treaty to infringe on 2nd amendment rights? The balance on SCOTUS is about to change for the worse, The Constitution will soon mean only what liberals want it to mean.

  16. Michael O. says:

    There is no such thing as a U.N. treaty that is beneficial to America. We need to get out of the U.N., but that will happen only when the majority conservative states secede from the broken, corrupt Marxist-minority dominated “Union.”

  17. Jr says:

    Matthew.7:15{Beware of false prophets, which which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.} {Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?} {Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.} Matthew.7:20{Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.} These verses are from the King James Version Bible, book of Matthew. This describes the obama administration to a T. You cannot believe their statements on gun control, they come to us as sheep but are as the Bible says raving wolves. Everything they have told the American people has been a coverup or an outright lie! They know that an ARMED nation will protect its self, if and when these rouge nations cross our borders and try to take AMERICA away from us. obama wants to be a one world leader and to take up with the U.N. will help him accomplish his goals. My guns don’t bother NO ONE who don’t bother Me or MY Family. These arms agreements need to be kept out of the United States and the United States needs to withdraw from the U.N. We don’t need them, they need us for their funding.

  18. Lars Arden says:

    Obama’s preference for using Executive Orders to create laws suiting his policies should be
    enough warning to every citizen that a UN Treaty can be construed or twisted to suit his anti-gun
    agenda. His “transparencey” is a fraud. Far too much has been hidden, deflected or manipulated
    to trust him with our rights. He will reconstitute the Supreme Court with extreme left-thinking judges
    and re-interpret the laws and the Constitution according to his will.We have elected our own executioner.

  19. Seminolekatz says:

    The last time I checked, America is an independent – sovereign Country and it is NOT just another ” State ” in the so-called ” Global Community “. NOTHING good comes out of the U.N. NEVER relinquish America’s well earned Independence to ANYONE !

  20. rev. dave says:

    “…not what the text says.”?????

    Our so-called (self-designated perhaps) needs to rethink that statement for sure. He’s clearly not familiar with the fact that ALL treaties get broken, or distorted, or more likely both. And finding one or two examples that weren’t won’t change the fact that for all intents and purposes they are virtually all broken.

    Even laws (supposedly more certain that treaties) are regularly broken, and law abiding citizens wait years or even decades for a resolution in courts. Case in point – FISA was broken by Pres. Bush, and when caught he admitted doing it regularly, and said that he would continue to break the law whenever he chose to do so. What was his punishment for that? (Nothing) And now Pres. Obama is doing the same thing, but he’s also now claiming he can order the detention or even murder of any human being anywhere at any time – even US citizens – without so much as a warrant, let alone a crime or conviction for it. Where is his punishment?

    So what freaking good is a treaty, especially when it’s implemented and administrated by an organization (i.e. the U.N.) known to exceed it’s charter and to be unfriendly to individual rights in every regard? Read the proposal yourselves, and realize that anywhere there is a possibility of interpreting this agenda to confiscate weapons, or eliminate the availability of weapons, parts or ammunition, not only will it happen, but it will be worse than you can imagine.

    There is no court to appeal this to that isn’t controlled by the organization that wants to implement it. The U.N. will not adhere to the US Constitution, as it doesn’t care about the rights of individual states and especially not their people – it’s a “governing” organization. It doesn’t give a crap about the US Supreme Court. And regardless of what the treaty may say, there will be rules and regulations and administrative procedures to administer it, and ‘crimes’ defined in those regulations, and special police forces to enforce those regulations, and internal (i.e. UN owned ‘courts’) to hear the cases. They may even set up their own prison system. And our federal government will be supporting it all and backing them up against it’s own citizens.

    If you don’t believe all that – just look at our own federal agencies, established by Congress with some good intent, but permitted to run wild and make things tough on everyone like undisciplined juvenile delinquents. Which? IRS, NSA, DHS, FEMA, BATFE, FDA, USDA, and every other fed agency that now has it’s own armed enforcement agents. Even if you do trust this treaty, you’re a fool to trust the US government to administer it without perverting the alleged good intent. We can’t even avoid that with our own agendas and agencies.

  21. Peterparker says:

    Obama has way too much power if all he has to do is sighn this treaty for it to impact our 2nd amendment, just like Obamacare what you hear about this treaty is only scratching the surface who really knows what it is all about. The only thing preventing a tyranny is a well armed civilian population the more they take away the easier it is for them to control us.

  22. BamaMilitia says:

    What about this part of the treaty.

    “Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately-owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.”

    Sounds to me that Obama may use this to say he had no control of the gun grab and that because we are a member of the treaty then it’s up to the U.N. This will then absolve him of the fault.

  23. American Patriot says:

    How much do you want to bet that the Clinton Global Initiative is driving this”Small Arms Treaty”? Anyone have any idea what happens to a countries populace when gun control is instituted? Ever hear about genocide?

  24. america the free says:

    if it come to pass where our guns are to be confiscated then once again this country will have to fight to regain its freedom. we did it before and we will do it again, after all this is America the land of the free. make no mistake about it we will fight

  25. Really?... Really? says:

    This post is a joke right?? Do you HONESTLY believe that this law is not a stepping stone for bigger atrocities? While you stew on that one… ask yourself… How many countries HAVE(in the past) given up their gun rights? How many of them are still “Free” nations? I’m more specifically referring to nations consisting of INDIVIDUAL freedoms… not those granted by the ignorant masses (which is sadly exactly what our country is becoming)… I could go on and on but I’m sure you don’t have the guts to research any of the questions I’ve asked… So i felt it NECESSARY to inform any readers that might actually believe this fuckin post that its a lie…

    Heres a Holocaust survivor warning america about “gun control” and the effect it had on her country
    http://holocaustwarning.blogspot.com/2012/12/holocaust-survivor-warns-of-american.html

    Heres a Russian warning the US
    http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/russian-warns-americans-dont-give-up-your-guns/

    My Message: Stop living in fear and give NO ground to man who feel he can “control” you. If you cant understand that YOU ARE A SHEEP and NEVER HAD FREEDOMS TO BEGIN WITH.

Leave a Reply

Helen Mirren is absolutely 'anti-gun'
Well, you can add actress Helen Mirren’s name to the list of celebrities who love to shoot ‘em up on screen and rant about gun control off screen. Mirren gave a wide-ranging interview to Yahoo! Movies Monday where she spoke about everything from her love of Vin Diesel to her laundry style to her opinion […]
Tom Cotton objects to his SNL parody

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) had a problem with SNL’s spoof of him—but only because the actor selected to portray him was too short.

Maher tells PC liberals 'shut the f up'

Bill Maher's politics are not always the greatest. But when it comes to knocking down the liberal PC brigade, he is on point like no other.

SNL parodies Starbucks' race campaign

What if another company--say, Pep Boys (or Girls! Or Whatever!)--took on their own campaign to talk about gender and sexual identity?

SNL's "The Rock" Obama goes beast-mode

Dwayne Johnson hosted SNL last night, so naturally he had to play a muscled-up Obama, who can finally do all the things he really wants—like throw John Boehner through a window and rip of Tom Cotton’s hand.

White House

Carly Fiorina says there’s a ‘higher than 90 percent chance’ she’s running for president

Carly Fiorina’s 2016 campaign is all but certain now—and she’s making no secret as to whom she’ll be targeting.

White House promises not to use legal loophole to keep NSA spying alive if Patriot Act expires
If the Patriot Act expires, it will stop the National Security Agency’s bulk spying too. The Obama administration promised this week that it will not take advantage of a legal loophole to keep the NSA spying alive unless Congress re-authorizes the Patriot Act, Reuters reported. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the NSA to collect data on […]
In honor of National Puppy Day, here are the top 10 cutest presidential puppies

Today is National Puppy Day! To celebrate, we give you the top ten cutest puppies to grace the White House Lawn.

Obama: ‘By hook or by crook’ I’ll push my agenda through
This is probably not the smartest phrasing to use. President Obama had an interview with Huffington Post over the weekend and while much of the interview was his oft-repeated lines about how Republicans are the reason nothing is getting done in Washington, he added a new phrase about his legacy that is bound to raise […]
Obama tells Prince Charles that Americans like the royal family better than their own politicians

President Obama has admitted what we all already knew: Americans far prefer the Duchess of Cambridge to Michelle.

Congress

Sen. Harry Reid will not seek re-election
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, the wily Nevadan who dominated the Senate for a decade from the minority to the majority and back again, announced Friday he will retire after five terms. Reid, 75, who shepherded key Obama administration initiatives including the president’s health care law, lost his role as majority leader — […]
Schock: Lincoln faced challenges too
Embattled Rep. Aaron Schock (R- Ill.) gave his farewell speech on the House floor Thursday, promising that it was “not the end of a story, but rather the beginning of a new chapter.” While his own trials are more of the “Downton Abbey” decor and Katy Perry concert variety, Schock likened this tough time to that […]
Boehner, Pelosi read mean tweets
Taking a cue from Jimmy Kimmel’s famous “Mean Tweets” series, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) got in on the fun and read some mean tweets about themselves in a video for the 2015 Radio & Television Correspondents Association […]
GOP blocks Warren's student loan plan
THE HILL — Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to attach an amendment aimed at lowering student loan rates to the budget. Senators voted 46-53 against Warren’s amendment to the Republican budget resolution. Warren’s amendment would have allowed people with college loan debt to refinance at interest rates from […]
Rand really liked those 'Stand with Rand' trolls

During Ted Cruz's big announcement at Liberty University yesterday--which students were required to attend--some Rand Paul supporters decided to troll Cruz with some "Stand with Rand" shirts: