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

Comments

  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.

    1. 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!

    2. 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!

    3. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    1. 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

    2. 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.

Polititainment

'SNL' laughs at North Korea, Sony hacks
“Saturday Night Live” hit on North Korea and the Sony hacks twice this weekend, proving that unlike most of Hollywood, they aren’t scared of Kim Jong-un. The show started off with a bang, bringing back Mike Myers as Dr. Evil to interrupt the cold open and discuss his anger over the North Korea and Sony hacker […]
RNC asks theaters to show 'The Interview
The Sony hack and subsequent cancellation of “The Interview” has gone fully political. President Obama made an official statement on this decision and now the Republican National Committee is weighing in. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus asks that movie theaters not bow down to North Korea and stand up to this decision by screening the film […]
Obama: LeBron 'did the right thing'

President Obama supports LeBron James' decision to wear an "I can't breathe" t-shirt during warmup before the NBA game between the Cleveland Cavaliers and Brooklyn Nets last week.

Al Sharpton, Hollywood's Sony Liaison

In a private meeting with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Greenwich Hotel in New York City Thursday, Sony Pictures chair Amy Pascal told Sharpton that he could have a voice in how the movie studio makes its films.

Clooney: Release 'The Interview' online

George Clooney may have the most awesomely toothy response to the Sony Pictures cyberattack that forced the movie studio to pull the film "The Interview" from its December 25 release.

White House

Obama: I will do ‘everything I can’ to close Guantanamo Bay
President Obama may have signed the defense bill that keeps Guantanamo Bay open for another year, but he is still verbally promising to close down the facility. Obama appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday and discussed closing Gitmo by the end of next year with host Candy Crowley. “I’m going to do everything […]
Obama: ‘We’re not going to be intimidated’ by Sony hackers
President Obama appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning and covered a variety of topics ranging from racism to North Korea and the Sony hacks. Obama repeated his earlier statements about the hacks, implying again that Sony made the wrong call by canceling screenings of “The Interview.” “The Boston Marathon suffered an actual […]
Obama: we can’t have censorship subject to ‘some dictator someplace’

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama declared Friday that Sony "made a mistake" in shelving a satirical film about a plot to assassinate North Korea's leader, and he pledged the U.S. would respond "in a place and manner and time that we choose" to the hacking attack on Sony that led to the withdrawal. The FBI blamed the hack on the communist government.

U.S. confirms North Korea was behind Sony attack and promises ‘proportional’ response

Officials no longer merely suspect North Korea to be behind the cyberattack on Sony Picture—they’ve confirmed it.

District court declares Obama’s executive action on immigration unconstitutional
A federal court in Pennsylvania declared parts of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration unconstitutional Tuesday. Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have the power to use discretion in deciding how to enforce laws, but found that Obama’s recent executive action went much further than that.  He said Obama was writing […]

Congress

Rubio, Paul feud continued on ABC's 'This Week'
Likely 2016 presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have been going after each other all week for statements made on President Obama’s decision to normalize relations with Cuba and the feud did not take a break over the weekend. The Florida senator, one of the most outspoken critics of the new Cuba policy, appeared on […]
Rubio says Rand Paul is clueless on Cuba

Sen. Marco Rubio made his criticism of a fellow Republican plain Thursday night.

Gowdy's office responds to Speaker chatter

Rep. Trey Gowdy has become a sensation on the Right, with his no-nonsense style and committee hearing takedowns of Obama officials garnering him praise and attention.

Rand Paul: 'Opening up Cuba is a good idea'

Sen. Rand Paul broke with the Republican Party's prevailing argument against President Obama's Cuba policy Thursday, saying the move toward opening trade with the long-embargoed nation "probably" is a good idea.

Retiring DemHenry Waxman's farewell ode to govt

You'd think that, 40 years in, a congressman might grow cynical about the prospects of government meddling. Not retiring Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)!