Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation

[Neapolitan]

Published June 03, 2013

FoxNews.com

 

 

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S. 

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2. 

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights." 

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country. 

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.   

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons. 

"As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty," the lawmakers wrote. 

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify. 

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented. 

The United Nations has organized a high-level signing ceremony at U.N. headquarters on Monday -- a sign of the treaty's global importance -- and several dozen countries are expected to sign, the first step to ratification. 

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year. 

The coalition noted that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death." 

Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders. 

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. 

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals. 

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/#ixzz2VD3OlzNp

 

[stealthwarrior]

^{F**K the U.N.}

[pattyangel]

 

Published June 03, 2013

FoxNews.com

 

 

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S. 

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2. 

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights." 

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country. 

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.   

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons. 

"As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty," the lawmakers wrote. 

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify. 

What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented. 

The United Nations has organized a high-level signing ceremony at U.N. headquarters on Monday -- a sign of the treaty's global importance -- and several dozen countries are expected to sign, the first step to ratification. 

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year. 

The coalition noted that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death." 

Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders. 

The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. 

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals. 

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

 

This will never conform to the United States Constitution.  One should contemplate those who are pushing to change the United States Constitution... by an international treaty to unlawfully circumvent the second amendment.  Their true intentions are eventually to make the American people defenseless.

 

We can't be blinded by their deceiving manner of the language they use to make up these false laws, bills, regulations, and yes, treaties. 

 

Bash me all you want naysayers, call me ignorant, (I've been called worse things, name calling doesn't phase me) but I will stand and defend the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights, because I know the true meaning of them.  I understand what our founding fathers stood for. 

Edited June 4, 2013 by pattyangel

[armondtoth]

Yeah like I'm going to hand over my gun, I'll give you the leaded part first.

[10 YEARS LATER]

Yeah like I'm going to hand over my gun, I'll give you the leaded part first.

Better get my friends - Barrett, Glock, Heckler & Koch . . . and they ain't attorneys. 

[jonjon]

[Sentinel7]

Today the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a global gun control treaty called the Arms Trade Treaty. Now the fight begins here at home. There are several things gun owners need to know to protect their constitutional rights.

Now that it’s been proposed, the treaty goes to all the member states to decide on whether to join. Per the U.S. Constitution, in America it must first be signed by the president (which it will), then be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). The United States is not likely to join the treaty as a nation, though President Barack Obama will likely push for it.

The General Assembly can’t do anything at the United Nations except propose (not establish) treaties and admit new U.N. members. Most of the power at the U.N. is in the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members (including the U.S.) and ten rotating seats among all the other U.N. members. So the General Assembly did one of the only things it can by recommending this treaty to its member states.

However, the first danger is that U.S. courts have held we’re bound by “customary international law,” sometimes called the “law of nations.” If enough U.N. member states were to adopt this treaty, a liberal federal court could rule it has become customary international law. The current Supreme Court would never affirm such a ruling, but there is a real danger if Obama changes the balance of the Court over the next three years.

Because federal statutes and treaties are of equal force under the U.S. Constitution, whenever they are in direct conflict, the most-recently passed of the two prevails. So, if somehow this treaty were ratified by the Senate, if Congress were to later pass a statute taking the opposite position, it would trump the treaty. 

Of course, you need a president’s signature to pass a statute or two-thirds of Congress to override a presidential veto, so we would need a president in 2016 who supports the Second Amendment to pass such a law.

And if we have such a president, you don’t even need a statute. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a president’s primary authority in directing foreign affairs under the Constitution means that any president can withdraw us from any treaty. If we elect a pro-Second Amendment president, he can just rescind our participation in the Arms Trade Treaty and can literally strike Barack Obama’s signature from the treaty paper.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it’s our last resort. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, Congress cannot do by treaty anything that would be unconstitutional if it were a statute. Treaties have no more power than statutes. 

So a pro-gun majority on the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down this treaty, just as they could an unconstitutional federal law. Such a thing would not happen unless the treaty was used to make some sort of major gun grab, but it’s still a tool in our arsenal if this treaty is used to violate the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

The dangers are obvious, however. If Barack Obama manages to get an anti-gun politician like Hillarious Clinton or Andrew Cuomo to follow him in 2016 as president, and changes the balance of the Supreme Court over time, then the Arms Trade Treaty could open America up to a worldwide U.N. gun control regime. That could lay the groundwork and set up a system that a decade or two from now could restrict lawful firearm ownership in this nation.

That must never happen. Second Amendment supporters need to step up, get involved in the electoral process, and make 2014 and especially 2016 banner years for supporters of the Constitution. The right to bear arms may depend on it.

 

 

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[desimo]

These morons can sign all the treaties they want but according to the Constitution only Congress can ratify any treaty.  Now if they try to force obedience to a treaty NOT ratified by Congress then there might be a little bit of trouble out there.

[Marlisco]

We need to keep a clear head and not get all wrapped up in emotional diatribe. Now is the time for clear headed politicians (if you can find some) to stand up and go to bat for the constitution. The anti gun liberals know just how to rile up the patriot gun owners. Then there is mayhem. Think about it folks. And I mean give it some serious thought. Economic power and group pressure always wins. Get into a club or group and support it. Give a few dollars. Encourage the able speakers to talk FOR you. If all you can do is get pissed and rant and rave, calling names and using profane language, you need to step back and support the ones who can speak for you. I've been on this earth seventy plus years and I have never seen it fail yet. Have faith. support the constitution and respect the flag. God Bless America. 

[dog53]

^{F**K the U.N.}

 

Ditto

[Muleslayer]

We need to keep a clear head and not get all wrapped up in emotional diatribe. Now is the time for clear headed politicians (if you can find some) to stand up and go to bat for the constitution. The anti gun liberals know just how to rile up the patriot gun owners. Then there is mayhem. Think about it folks. And I mean give it some serious thought. Economic power and group pressure always wins. Get into a club or group and support it. Give a few dollars. Encourage the able speakers to talk FOR you. If all you can do is get pissed and rant and rave, calling names and using profane language, you need to step back and support the ones who can speak for you. I've been on this earth seventy plus years and I have never seen it fail yet. Have faith. support the constitution and respect the flag. God Bless America.

who can speak for you

I just did !

Ditto

Second that! All in favor?

Damn! I used ALL my plussies on one topic!

Edited June 7, 2013 by Muleslayer

[Maggie123]

^{F**K the U.N.}

 

 

Ditto

 

I'll take that "Ditto" and double it.

 

We need to keep a clear head and not get all wrapped up in emotional diatribe. Now is the time for clear headed politicians (if you can find some) to stand up and go to bat for the constitution. The anti gun liberals know just how to rile up the patriot gun owners. Then there is mayhem. Think about it folks. And I mean give it some serious thought. Economic power and group pressure always wins. Get into a club or group and support it. Give a few dollars. Encourage the able speakers to talk FOR you. If all you can do is get pissed and rant and rave, calling names and using profane language, you need to step back and support the ones who can speak for you. I've been on this earth seventy plus years and I have never seen it fail yet. Have faith. support the constitution and respect the flag. God Bless America. 

 

I will take your wisdom too... Thank You Marlisco.

[10 YEARS LATER]

TRAITOR  LIAR  COMMUNIST - Should be arrested allong with all the other traitors.

 

But instead they hold committee meetings and engage in verbal fencing and chat about it on the evening news. 

[yota691]

Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty

June 7, 2013 by Chip Wood

PHOTOS.COM

A majority in the U.S. Senate has told President Barack Obama not to do it. There’s no doubt that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose it — if the media ever told them about it.

Nonetheless, this past Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Obama will sign a controversial gun-control treaty promulgated by the United Nations. “We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official languages is completely satisfied,” Kerry said in a prepared statement.

Although the treaty is being touted as a way to prevent “illicit trade in conventional weapons,” it actually does far more than that. Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.

In other words, this U.N. treaty would mean the end of our 2nd Amendment rights. And Kerry says Obama will sign it. What kind of madness is this?

Resolutions condemning the treaty were promptly introduced in both branches of Congress. The measures submitted to the Senate by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and to the House of Representatives by Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) declare that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

Then in March, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted an amendment to the budget bill that urged the Obama Administration “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” Inhofe’s amendment was approved by a vote of 53 to 46.

So a majority of Senators have publicly declared their opposition to this dangerous treaty. Doesn’t sound like there’s much chance the treaty will get a positive vote by two-thirds of the Senate, which the Constitution says must be done for any treaty to take effect.

Despite rumors to the contrary, I don’t think even Obama — surely one of the most arrogant people to ever occupy the Oval Office — will try to do an end-run around this Constitutional requirement. But still, the President has come out in favor of it. And Kerry says the Administration is eager to sign it.

Which makes me wonder, have these guys lost their minds?

I’ll grant you, both men have made it clear throughout their careers the utter disdain they hold for the idea of any Constitutional restraints on their actions. But still, coming out in support of such a flagrantly unConstitutional measure now makes me wonder what is really going on here.

I’ve heard suggestions that the U.N. gun control treaty is being brought forward now to distract us from all the other scandals that are besetting the Obama Administration. But that’s as unlikely as the idea that the Administration decided to unleash the story of what the IRS did to Tea Party and other patriotic groups in an effort to distract people from two other scandals — the Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the Justice Department’s surreptitious seizure of some reporters’ emails.

Okay, so we now know that the IRS actually planted the question that led to the story first breaking about how they targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. And of course it was incredibly stupid to ask for donors’ names and addresses and even questioning what some of the applicants believed.

Passing on some of that private information, so it could be posted on-line by a left wing group, compounded the folly. Clearly, some heads will have to roll over all of this. By the time Congress finishes its various investigations, some IRS employees may even face criminal penalties. From what we know, they should.

But I haven’t seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the IRS scandal will reach into the Oval Office. Yes, Obama set the tone that led to the malfeasance below him. But I don’t think he issued the orders. Unlike Watergate, there’s no recorded conversation or other smoking gun here: or, so far as we know, any impeachable offense.

But that’s emphatically not the case with the Administration’s active support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Obama and his allies, including Kerry, know exactly what they’re doing. And they seem determined to proceed, no matter what anyone says.

The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty was going nowhere last year. Obama, who was running for reelection, said he opposed it. Negotiators couldn’t agree on terms.

But then on Nov. 7 — one day after Obama won his second term — the President reversed himself and instructed our delegation at the U.N. conference to agree to a “Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” to be held in New York City in March.

When that conference voted to send the treaty to the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. representatives fully supported the move. Subsequently, on April 2 the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of its passage. The vote was a lop-sided 154 to 3. The Untied States was one of the “ayes.”

The “no” votes came from three of most notorious human-rights violators in a body that’s filled with them — Iran, Syria, and North Korea. China and Russia joined 21 other nations in abstaining.

How many of those countries were founded on the principle that the citizens’ rights come from God, not government? How many have anything resembling our own Bill of Rights, where the people’s rights (and the limitations on their rulers) are spelled out so forcefully and specifically?

I’m pretty sure the answer is zero.

No, those 154 countries represent some of the most repressive regimes on earth. There aren’t too many friends of freedom sitting in that glass palace on the East River.

The United Nations is been a notorious hotbed of anti-American sentiment since the day it was founded. We don’t have many friends there and never have. Heck, its very creation was virtually a communist plot against this country, as G. Edward Griffin proves in The Fearful Master, his invaluable study of the origins of this one-world monstrosity.

Allowing the United Nations to void our 2nd Amendment rights, and determine gun-control policies for this country would be a huge step down the road to our own enslavement. As I said before, it’s utter madness.

Let’s make sure that Barack Obama, John Kerry and their left wing allies don’t get away with it.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

[leanonme]

Congress passed the patriot act and NTTA. So they they could do this too.

[pattyangel]

Congress passed the patriot act and NTTA. So they they could do this too.

 

I can't tell if your making a statement of giving up or just making us aware.  No offense intended. 

 

Yes you are correct in the possibility of Congress passing this. But I will do my part in making it known to my representatives of the state and out of state that this is not acceptable.  We can not allow the "powers that be,"  to misuse its powers to form unconstitutional laws, treaties and so forth. 

[desimo]

Just a quick reminder to people that these 'chat' sites are all monitored.  I know because I had a client who said the wrong thing on one and got visited by the Feds.  We probably all feel the same way regarding this issue.  It is a sad day that we do have to be careful of what we say because we are being monitored.  Again, America has become Cold War Russia in so many ways.  Stalin said that America would fall without a shot and all it would take would be 26 tin soldiers referring to the alphabet.  We do not know what is in store for America.  I think we would all be willing to pay what ever price is needed to return America back to America. 

[yota691]

[dog53]

Just a quick reminder to people that these 'chat' sites are all monitored.  I know because I had a client who said the wrong thing on one and got visited by the Feds.  We probably all feel the same way regarding this issue.  It is a sad day that we do have to be careful of what we say because we are being monitored.  Again, America has become Cold War Russia in so many ways.  Stalin said that America would fall without a shot and all it would take would be 26 tin soldiers referring to the alphabet.  We do not know what is in store for America.  I think we would all be willing to pay what ever price is needed to return America back to America. 

 

I not careful. I dont care if their listening. In fact I hope they are

Screw the GOVT

The GOVT can kiss my a$$

[R2D2]

^{F**K the U.N.}

My contaminates exactally. I hate a muslimmaristimposter that is as phony as 3 dollar bill.