Arms Trade Treaty Will Strip Constitutional Rights Thats For Sure!

While America was distracted by Senator Ted Cruz’s marathon speech earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry attended the United Nations General Assembly meeting. While there, Kerry signed the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a highly controversial treaty that many Americans and a number of lawmakers aren’t happy about.
The treaty was adopted by the General Assembly last year in order to regulate “the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools.” The intention to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals may seem noble, but I assure you there’s little that’s noble about this treaty.
Those who support the ATT, like Kerry, claim that it’ll “lift other countries up to the highest standards” because it’ll regulate the transfer of arms and it’ll keep irresponsible arms exporters from sending guns to other nations. Much like people who support stricter gun control in America, those in favor of the ATT argue that it’ll keep weapons out of the hands out of criminals, but Ted R. Bromund of The Heritage Foundation doesn’t agree: “The inanity of the idea that a mere treaty will be able to do what U.N. Security Council sanctions have been unable to achieve—i.e., stop nations such as Cuba from shipping arms to North Korea—would be laughable were the subject not so serious.”
Designed to Destroy Our Rights
Many think that the treaty only affects weapons designed for war, but that’s not the case. It actually highlights “small arms” and “light weapons” and could result in limitations to the importing and exporting of such firearms. Keep in mind that the United States is the number one arms exporter and that 35% of the America’s new firearm market is made up of imports. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton stated that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” If it goes into effect, the ATT could have a greater impact on American gun-ownership than the treaty’s supporters care to admit.
In fact, Americans stand to lose a lot if the ATT is implemented by the United States. You see, the treaty gives the American president more power over gun regulations and even gives him the ability to hinder the U.S. market for firearm imports and to determine what firearms can be imported into the nation. Because of the treaty’s ambiguity, these decisions would be left solely to the discretion of the president. The ATT allows the president to deem a gun or class of guns as “inappropriate,” or a danger to “women and children”… squelching the Second Amendment. The treaty goes a step further in ensuring that the Second Amendment is crushed, too.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the treaty doesn’t guarantee a person’s right to “keep and bear arms.” Instead, it states that it is “mindful of…legitimate trade and lawful ownership…where…permitted or protected by law.”
The ATT is also likely to require an international firearm registration. After all, if the United Nations desires to limit the exportation of firearms, it’s going to have to use some sort of intrusive registration system to keep up with them, again threatening the Second Amendment.
Congress? Who Cares About Them!
While the Obama Administration and Kerry seem all too pleased about the ATT, they lack the necessary support of Congress. In order to be implemented, the U.S. Senate has to ratify the treaty, which is unlikely to happen. Over the summer, 130 Republican members of the House sent President Obama a letter warning against signing the ATT. They wrote, “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” They also argued that the treaty poses a threat to the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Earlier this week, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker wrote a letter also warning the Obama Administration against signing the treaty. According to Corker, “The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions.  Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be fundamentally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, law, and practice.” Corker goes on to say that the Constitution requires the “advice and consent” of Congress before a treaty goes into effect and that Congress hasn’t given such, meaning that the executive branch has no authority to implement the treaty. He also stated that the ATT contradicts current federal legislation which would have to be rewritten before the treaty takes effect.
While it doesn’t seem likely that the Senate will ratify the treaty, we should still be concerned. It wouldn’t be out of character for the Obama Administration to circumvent Congress and move forward with implementing the ATT. President Obama has made it very clear that his agenda is to continue to push for increased gun control… and the ATT is no different. Needless to say…  Americans shouldn’t let their guards down.
In pursuit of the truth, The Plain Truth!