Why the UN Arms Treaty Violates the Constitution

From Tea Party Nation…

The UN Arms Trade Treaty should alarm any liberty-loving citizen.  Every UN treaty requires the participating country to turn over its sovereignty regarding that particular issue.  An agreement with the UN removes the autonomy of the nation and the independence of the people to make their own laws free of UN control and dictate.   The UN Arms Trade Treaty is no exception.  It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation.  Patrick Henry gave this clear warning in his day,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.  O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

We should guard with jealous attention and be very suspicious of this present attempt to remove our public liberty.

The first problem with the treaty is that it uses some incredibly awkward wording, and the meaning of sentences can be very difficult to understand because the structure is so bad.  It is as if someone who holds English as a third or fourth language wrote the English version, but I digress.  I want to highlight just SOME of the problems with this treaty, and there are many.

The very first provision in the preamble should be enough to make Americans abandon the entire treaty.

The States Parties to this Treaty,

  1. Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

This might not cause alarm to the average person who has never read the UN Charter.  But those who have will understand that we are already on shaky ground.  It is simply not possible for the UN charter and the US Constitution to co-exist without one being abrogated to the other. Consider just the preamble to the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

Therefore, each party to the treaty must write laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms consistent with those standards.  So, each law must guarantee that the sale and possession of guns are only allowed where the GOVERNMENT can ensure that such activity will not be a “threat to peace” or cause “breaches of peace” and these laws MUST conform to international law.  How does international law define “threat to peace”?  What activity will cause “breaches of peace”?  Compliance with this treaty now obligates our Congress, when drafting laws, to comply with international law?  Seriously?  This makes our Congress bound by a global democracy and not a Constitutional Republic based upon the consent of the governed.  This move toward global governance is antithetical to the Constitution.

Another principle of the UN Charter requires Congress, when drafting these laws, to focus on international cooperation.  What is the purpose to be considered when doing so?  According to the Charter, these laws must solve international problems of economic, social, cultural, humanitarian character and promote human rights.

So wrapped up in just the first sentence of the treaty; every law Congress makes to comply with this treaty must regulate the sale and possession of firearms to:

  1. Act collectively with and in compliance with international law;
  2. Ensure that firearms will not be used as a “threat to peace”;
  3. Ensure that firearms will not be used to invoke a “breach of peace”;
  4. Solve international problems.

These requirements create a “government knows best” frame of mind regarding who can possess firearms and how they will be used.  This is completely antithetical to the foundation of America and the understanding of our right to keep and bear arms.  If you doubt this statement, please read my previous writing discussing the true understanding of our second amendment.  There is no way that Congress will be able to meet these criteria and maintain the protection of our second amendment rights.

Section 4 of the preamble of the UN Arms Trade Treaty makes the following requirement of those under the treaty:

The States Parties to this Treaty,

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and ERADICATE the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime.

Congress must write laws to regulate “small arms and light weapons” based upon international standards and must also PREVENT illicit trade and unauthorized use.  That word “illicit” is not necessarily synonymous with “illegal.”  If they had wanted to say “illegal”, meaning based upon established laws, surely they would have said so.  They did not, however, and by stating “illicit” instead of “illegal” they are applying a subjective standard, not codified by law but established by a “common custom, rule, or standard.”

The UN will dictate to Congress and to the citizens of this nation, who will keep arms, what arms they will keep, and for what purpose they will keep them, all based upon subjective standards and international law.  Again, there is NO WAY Congress can meet this standard and still uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Ratifying this treaty will be turning over our government to foreign rule and would be an act of treason.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. ~George Washington, Farewell Address 1796.

Proponents may attempt to argue this treaty is only to create laws and regulations governing foreign trade and commerce.  That would be a lie and the articles of this treaty directly contradict that assertion.  Article 9 requires each government to take appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control the buying and selling of firearms within that nation.  We have just stepped out of the realm of the international and are now imposing laws controlling the people within their own country.

How is each government supposed to control this buying and selling?

The Treaty requires the establishment of a “national control system.”  Great…another federal bureaucracy!

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent, and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms.

What will this new federal agency do to comply with this Treaty?

They will be required by the UN to collect “all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-users in the country or final destination.”  They will make sure “all appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request…to verif[y] the end users.”  And this bureaucracy will create “adequate measures that will allow them…to monitor and control” these firearms.

How will this bureaucracy “monitor and control the firearms?

The Treaty requires, in Article 11, each government to maintain records regarding the “quantity, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, and details of end-users.”  They must keep these records for a minimum of 10 years.  These reports must be submitted to the UN’s Implementation Support Unit to be added to the UN Register of Conventional Arms.  In order to purchase and possess a firearm citizens will now be required to give to the United Nations their names, addresses, phone numbers, birth date, and any other information the UN feels is necessary.

In summary, the national control agencies will collect all information necessary to identify and track not only the firearms but those who will be the “end-users,” the possessors of those firearms and that information will be submitted to the UN to be kept on their records for 10 years.  Make no mistake, this is not referring to foreign trade, this is a direct control and monitoring of the individuals of that country possessing arms.

But wait; there is an amendment process to this Treaty.   Pursuant to Article 20, any government can submit an amendment to the Treaty at any time and ratification only requires an “adoption by consensus” or two-thirds of the governments present and voting at the Conference of State Parties.  Any such amendment ratified will enter into full force against all governments in the Treaty.   So if the government doesn’t like an amendment, too bad.

What happens if a government no longer wants to be part of this Treaty?

Section 18 allows governments to withdraw from the treaty, but includes the provision that a government is “not discharged from the obligations” of the treaty even if they withdraw.  So you can withdraw, but the UN will still require you to fulfill the obligations of the treaty.  Are you kidding me?

The purpose of this Treaty is to regulate “small arms and light weapons” out of the hands of the individuals.  It will remove the need for the government to confiscate weapons.  All future sales will be so heavily regulated that purchasing a new firearm will be next to impossible.  If you still wish to wade through the heavy regulations, you will consent to having all of your personal identifying information submitted to the United Nations knowing they will keep that information on file for 10 years.  You will also consent to submit to foreign law that will dictate how you possess and use that firearm.  They won’t need to show up at your door to take your weapons, most citizens will simply find it too much trouble and not even bother.

Our second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  This Treaty is a violation of this amendment and is unconstitutional.  If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will be null and void and the people will not be bound by it.  Don’t believe me?  Read what our founders say about unconstitutional treaties.

The real question is, if the Senate ratifies this Treaty, or the President attempts to implement it without the authority of the Senate, what will THE PEOPLE do about it?

Will we stand for the Constitution and demand that our states nullify this treaty as our founders require?  Or will we blindly submit to the tyranny of foreign law imposed upon us?  Sam Adams said,

‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.  It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”

Will we preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity or will we involve them in our doom?

____________________________________________

From Tea Party Nation: http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873:BlogPost:2126032&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s