Full Proposed UN Arms Control Treaty Released

Is it really as bad as some are making it out to be?

(CBS News) The first draft of a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade sparked criticism Tuesday from campaigners seeking to keep illegal weapons from fighters, criminals and terrorists – and demands for changes before Friday’s deadline for action.

Peter Herby of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross said that every element in the draft has “major loopholes,” and he warned that if it’s adopted there’s “a very high risk” the treaty would continue the status quo and allow countries to just continue doing what they’re doing now or even do less.

But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association and Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said that with a few key fixes the treaty could reduce the impact of the illicit arms trade and save lives and should be supported by the Obama administration.

At the Examiner we read

The proposed United Nations international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is out, and it is already running into trouble as many of the tenets are apparently contrary to United States law, to say nothing of the collision they might have with the Second Amendment.

Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law.

The thing is, I’ve read through the proposed treaty multiple times, looking for hidden nuggets, and really cannot find anything to get upset over. The treaty as written focuses on international arms sales and transfers, and it is all about exports, not domestic purchases. This would not effect the domestic purchasing of arms, of which handguns, rifles, and shotguns are mentioned. It’s not going to create a huge database of gun owners which would end up in UN hands.

Of course, as the drafts change, that could still happen, but right now it looks simply like a way to eliminate the sale of arms to crazy regimes, terrorists, people bent on genocide, etc, not the reduction of sales for legitimate purposes.

PS: If the Obama regime had been following these same rules as laid out in the Treaty, they would be in big trouble vis a vis Fast and Furious, as the treaty would have made that type of arms transfer illegal.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

7 Comments

Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-07-25 12:27:53

I’ve always why they user the term “illicit arms trade”. Why? Does this mean that the trade of arms is illegal on purpose? And, if they are trying to regulate illegal sales of arms, how will making ANOTHER law against it, make it FURTHER illegal? If they can’t stop illegal sales of arms now, how will making another law stop it tomorrow?

By the way, knowing this, then what is the point. It’s the same point local people have when trying to push “gun control” after tragedies. It is all about controlling the legal populace.

Also, many of the guns that we buy here in America are foreign made. Could this law have an impact upon our ability to access those guns? Could this law ban, block, harass the ability of our local gun mfgs from exporting weapons to EU countries?

And Teach, knowing the past and latest actions by the UN against freedoms, against us, and against our friends, should we trust anything the UN does? Law of Sea Treat comes to mind.

 
Comment by William Teach
2012-07-25 13:21:10

Yeah, I know, we shouldn’t trust the UN, but, they do do some good work now and then.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-07-25 14:23:53

Only when we were leaders and forced the UN to act, or prevented the massive anti-Israel factions to dominate.

 
Comment by USCitizen
2012-07-25 20:55:11

The thing I am curious about is how “international transfer rules” might impact importation of arms or parts into the U.S.

 
Comment by Dana
2012-07-25 21:41:56

The Constitution requires that the Senate ratify, by a 2/3 majority, all treaties before they become the law of the land. But recently our Presidents have been signing treaties, but never submitting them to the Senate for ratification, because they know that they would lose a ratification vote.

 
Comment by William Teach
2012-07-25 22:26:06

Good point, Dana. It definately will not pass the Senate. And, since it needs consensus among the 193 member states of the UN, it probably won’t pass, either. Not sure that China and Russia want to sign it.

And, heck, even if passed, countries will blow it off. Remember all the banned goods that made their way to Iraq from France and Germany?

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-07-25 22:43:24

OH come on Teach. Look at how solidified the UN has been against IRAN. The UN has put up an Iron Wall around Iran and nothing has gotten in or out.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11758 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE