Sunday, 06 July 2014 19:00

Does UN Arms Trade Treaty Threaten the Second Amendment?

Written by 

At a meeting to discuss gun control held at the United Nations on June 25, representatives of the global anti-gun lobby were discouraged by the U.S. Senate’s failure to ratify the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

“Unfortunately, the United States, the world’s largest arms exporter, has signed but not ratified the treaty,” said Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Security Studies Programme in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Goldring went on to lament that the U.S. Senate doesn’t seem disposed to act on approving the treaty and likely won’t “for many years.”

For now, it seems Goldring’s gauge of the political climate in the Senate is accurate. In a letter sent to President Barack Obama last October, 50 senators laid out six reasons the president should refuse to present the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to the Senate for ratification. Among the objections is the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.”

At the conference, held to discuss the Programme of Action (PoA) to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Goldring told lobbyists representing both sides of the issue that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations in the United States have spread lies regarding the potential effect of the Arms Trade Treaty on the right to keep and bear arms.

“The simple truth is the ATT does not affect the domestic trade in weapons in the United States. It’s a treaty about international arms transfers, not sales within the United States,” she added.

In case a reader would rather read the text of the treaty than to take the word of a UN representative, the English-language version of the Arms Trade Treaty can be found here. Beyond that, here are a few provisions of the treaty that would, despite Goldring’s assurances, directly and immediately impact the full expression of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.

• Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

• Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.

• Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

Goldring thinks such steps are but the first in a path that leads to “better control” of the trade of weapons. There is little doubt who would be left in control of firearms if Goldring gets her way. The United Nations, acting through domestic enforcers, would require registration of weapons, which Americans recognize as the first step toward their control and outright confiscation.

The right to keep and bear arms was known to our Founders as he ultimate check on the rise of tyrants. Americans jealous of this God-given right know that now is the time to reject the UN’s attempts to repeal the Second Amendment and that organization is the key to safeguarding their gun rights.

For more than half a century, The John Birch Society has offered patriots an opportunity to unite in the cause of preserving the Constitution and enforcing its principles of limited government. Not long after its founding, the JBS launched its project to get the United States out of the United Nations — and this project remains one of the most  timely and critical aspects of the JBS agenda.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Get UD out of the UN 

9 comments

  • Comment Link Depose Debauched Despots Sunday, 13 July 2014 20:49 posted by Depose Debauched Despots

    The stinking UN is rife with debauched despots, tyrants and wannabe tyrants. They try to hide behind mouthpieces/propagandists that huckster, peddle & pimp tyranny as the #1 lifestyle for us.

    But these parasites themselves and their sycophants won't live under tyrants.

    Their barely-disguised, disarm-the-people "treaty" won't murder the Second Amendment.
    Righhhhhht. I'm a total idiot, so I believe you. UN career liars/propagandists never tell lies.

    In 2003 I said, "Give the UN 24 hours to leave NYC. After that deadline, round up the stragglers, stick them on a garbage barge, push it into the Atlantic, and set it adrift."

    I was too kind. Forget the 24 hours. Round them up. Dispose of them. Permanently.

  • Comment Link Old Mullet Wednesday, 09 July 2014 22:08 posted by Old Mullet

    The original Constitutional reasons for a federal government includes that the F.G. was to protect the sovereign states from being overrun by foreign powers. It was to intercede to uphold the tenets of the Constitution. The so called "Treaty" is a wolf in sheep's clothing in that it allows the U.N. power that exceeds Constitutional rule. Once that "door" is opened, our nation begins the next phase of One World order to make the U.S. equal to the third-world powers et al. (Refer to Agenda 21.. NOT "drivel", proof in corrosive actions over the past 30 years taken directly from the "plan.)

  • Comment Link Ted R. Weiland Wednesday, 09 July 2014 17:05 posted by Ted R. Weiland

    In response to Heidi Preston's reply to my post:

    Heidi, in light of Proverbs 18:13, I think you should have first read the article I provided the URL to BEFORE responding. If you did read it before responding, you need to go back and read it again because you obviously did not understand it.

    You won't find anymore more pro-self-defense than me. However, I'm promoting the much more potent non-optional, non-repealable, God-expected RESPONSIBILITY to bear arms in defense of myself, my family, and my neighbor over the optional Enlightenment right (contained in the Second Amendment) to do so. For example:

    "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)

    For a better understanding of where I'm coming from, you may want to listen to "The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.com/#FeaturedMessages.

    At the same location, you'll also find an interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me regarding the superiority of Biblical responsibilities over optional rights. I think you'll find Mr. Pratt's remarks especially enlightening.

  • Comment Link Nora Tuesday, 08 July 2014 23:17 posted by Nora

    Goldring is either an idiot or a liar...or both. I read the text of the treaty years ago, and wrote to my representatives that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they better keep the U.S. laws in force and prevent the treaty from being ratified.
    The second amendment is the line in the sand. It's painfully obvious that we need our weapons to protect ourselves from this criminal government. Only 50 senators may not be a formidable enough front, but it doesn't matter how many oppose, Americans are not giving up their guns and we've made it clear. They can usurp and try an end run around our God-given rights all they want, we have seen what follows when dictators disarm the people, and we're not having any of that. These miscreants know we will simply ignore their treaty because we're not a party to it. It's null and meaningless in our eyes. We can and will use deadly force to protect ourselves, and that truly deters the cowards who think they will take American guns like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler took them, with would-be laws.

  • Comment Link Bobby Tuesday, 08 July 2014 22:25 posted by Bobby

    Under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, such accords are NOT automatically self-executing within nations. Such drivel as GLOBAL 2000 and AGENDA 21 lack even such standing, and our national legislators should be summarily recalled and replaced if they cooperate with such sedition and treason.

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Tuesday, 08 July 2014 19:52 posted by Heidi Preston

    Response to Mr. Weiland- read passages from Samuel 1:11 and 4:4 (among others...to lengthy to mention). It seems without weapons you become slaves and no one wants to become one....even in Biblical times.

    Samuel 1:1- At this time Nahash led the army of the Ammonites against the Israeli city of Jabesh-gilead. But the citizens of Jabesh asked for peace. "Leave us alone and we will be your servants," they pleaded. "Alright" Nahash said, "but only on one condition: I will gouge out the right eye of every one of yoou as a disgrace upon all Israel"....1:11Saul arrived having divided his army into three detachments and launched a surprise attack....

    Samuel 4:4- at That time Israel was at war with the Philistines. The Israeli army was camped....

    Yeah, I think we need to keep the Second Amendment in tack and forget this we shall live in peace once the weapons are gone business. The United Nations was formed supposedly to never again have to fight wars...haven't seen it yet, but they sure do supply some through other means. Don't believe everything you read (including this ...read it for yourself....do your homework.

  • Comment Link Pete Bennett Tuesday, 08 July 2014 19:48 posted by Pete Bennett

    For Mr Goldring to unequivocally state that the UN Small Arms Treaty would not affect the provisions of the 2nd Amendment tells the citizens of America that he has absolutely NO grasp on that Amendment, or...he is a blatent, manipulative, lying, deceitful example of the best representative agent the United Nations has to offer.
    I would echo efforts to extricate the USA from the UN, were it not so apparrant we need to remain on the inside to keep an eye on the thieves.

  • Comment Link Heidi Preston Tuesday, 08 July 2014 18:25 posted by Heidi Preston

    "Among the objections is the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.” ....Kudos to those 50 Senators who apparently have the "intelligence" to see into the future and it's consequences.

    Intelligence is the ability to understand the facts and it's independent relationships to each other and come up with the CONNECTION between them. Thank you for paying attention the 50 Senators (who apparently will remain nameless for the time being).

  • Comment Link Ted R. Weiland Tuesday, 08 July 2014 17:57 posted by Ted R. Weiland

    For two reasons the Second Amendment is ultimately doomed, see http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/the-second-amendment-is-doomed/.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in