The United NATIONS has solved all problems

[AGL4now]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-overwhelmingly-approves-first-ever-global-arms-155542094.html

 

[yukon254]

Five-years ago I saw an interview with John Bolton & Karl Rove.....during that interview they both agreed that the biggest danger to the 2A would come from the UN in the form of an arms treaty......Kind of interesting to see who 'abstained'.....

 

[Nitroman]

It will only make getting the weapons more expensive.

 

[Brian M]

Can someone educated on this issue point to the verbiage in this treaty that is of concern to U.S. gun owners? I don't trust the U.N. and I know better than to take what various politicians say at face value - BUT - if this really is about controlling the flow of arms to groups such as those cited in the press releases I've read, I don't see that as a bad thing. I also noted the following:

The Iranian, Syrian and North Korean delegations cast the sole votes against the treaty on Tuesday.

In general, anything that Iran and North Korea votes against is probably something resembling a sane proposal. Again, the devil may be in the details, hence my question - what in the actual wording of the proposal threatens the Second Amendment?

 

[thunder chicken1]

it means nothing to u.s. gun owners because it has to pass the senate which it won't.........

 

[AGL4now]

I think where it would have come into play was with the "Fast & Furious" gun running across to Mexico. But that is all nicely swept under the rug now.

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

Brian, I can't locate the language of the treaty at the moment, but the following comments (posted in an NRA-ILA article) are what may be the most troublesome for the American people...

For example, the most recent draft treaty includes import/export controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

OK, I found it. Here's the latest draft of the treaty as published on the UN website. Note that Article 10 says that records shall be kept for 10 years (as opposed to the 20 years stated in the NRA-ILA article). Otherwise, it looks like the NRA-ILA quote I posted earlier sums it up pretty well.

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

Ignore the previous post. I ran out of time trying to edit it. Note that the previous post contains a link to the draft treaty, while this post contains a link to the adopted treaty.

Here's the adopted treaty (document A/CONF.217/2013/L.3) as published on the UN website. Note that Article 12 says that records shall be kept for 10 years (as opposed to the 20 years stated in the NRA-ILA article). Otherwise, it looks like the NRA-ILA quote I posted earlier sums it up pretty well.

This document shows that the treaty (document A/CONF.217/2013/L.3) was adopted by the UN on April 1, 2013. Note the name listed on this document: Sixty-seventh session; Agenda item 94; General and complete disarmament.

 

[Rock_skipper]

Rember when Palin was asked if she would back Obomacare and she said that she would'nt support it because of the death sentence that came along with the bill??? ( I'm not promoting any body but she had alot more info than any of us had,)

I'm starting to think that Miss Palin was trying to tell us all something that she could see and was trying to warn us of what was brought to her table, but had to be censored.

 

[Amigo Will]

I'm thinking American gun companies like this as you will have to buy American unless they import it and stamp it with their name.

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

You forget the part about not being able to export firearms if we don't comply. That doesn't seem like something our domestic manufacturers would endorse.

 

[AGL4now]

I'm thinking American gun companies like this as you will have to buy American unless they import it and stamp it with their name.

They will not enjoy that their overseas market is closed, and what is America if not over bought of firearms in most households.

 

[ManOrMoose]

Brian, I can't locate the language of the treaty at the moment, but the following comments (posted in an NRA-ILA article) are what may be the most troublesome for the American people...

I wouldn't rely on them for accurate info on what UN firearm discussions are about. The treaty says

Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the exporting State Party, to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national export assessment under Article 7. Such measures may include end use or end user documentation.

This does not require the US to do anything that conflicts with its laws ("pursuant to its national laws"). Such measures *may* include end use or end user documentation.

First, the Senate has to ratify it.
Second, if it does, treaties don't override US statutes.
Third, treaties don't override the Constitution.

Basically, it doesn't say what the NRA says it says, it's not law yet, and if it becomes law, anything that's binding will have to be constitutional, but there's little that's binding.

 

[Rod in Wasilla]

To be honest, the NRA-ILA article I posted was published back in July, and was a commentary on the draft treaty as it existed then. That document contained a bunch more "shall's" and a lot less "may's" and "should's" than the version adopted yesterday. I haven't really had the time to digest the document as adopted.

But, at first glance, what the document doesn't say is who gets to decide on the "may" and "should". If the exporting State Party requests end user information, and the importing State Party doesn't/can't provide that information, is the importing State Party subject to import sanctions?

At this point, I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[Amigo Will]

I was thinking our country bought the guns and gave them to other countries to show our support of them and so they can use them on us at a later date.

 

[iofthetaiga]

I was thinking our country bought the guns and gave them to other countries to show our support of them and so they can use them on us at a later date.

...which gives us the excuse to engage them in war under the guise of defending ourselves....then we can steal their oil to support our disgusting habit, and prop up our baseless economy.:topjob:

 

[AlaskaHippie]

I was thinking our country bought the guns and gave them to other countries to show our support of them and so they can use them on us at a later date.

...which gives us the excuse to engage them in war under the guise of defending ourselves....then we can steal their oil to support our disgusting habit, and prop up our baseless economy.:topjob:

And also continues to make atrocities video game fodder as we institute the very Domino Effect of gunboat politics we fought against in Korea, and Vietnam.