Second Amendment: The Senate is unlikely to ratify a United Nations arms treaty signed by John Kerry, but gun control zealots will use it as justification for "common sense" infringements on our constitutional right.
Inhofe reminded Kerry that the pact would "collect dust alongside the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Kyoto Protocol, to name a few, which have all been rejected by the U.S. Senate and the American people."
Earlier this year, Inhofe introduced an amendment to a budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the U.N. arms treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed 53-46.
So why sign a treaty that the Senate won't ratify into law and which some argue won't affect domestic gun rights anyway?
Because it will give the president cover to do on gun control what he does so well on other issues — ignore Congress, the Constitution and we the people so he can govern by regulation and executive order.
The treaty will also give state and local governments an argument to restrict gun rights at the local level, despite the recent electoral smack down of two anti-gun legislators in Colorado. It will, as well, provide the courts, which are increasingly prone to take foreign laws and treaties as relevant, with leverage against the Second Amendment.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and it might be time for gun rights supporters to be vigilant. This treaty matters. Article 5 of the Arms Trade Treaty requires signatories to set up a "National Control List." Country leaders who sign the treaty "shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list," which sounds suspiciously like national gun registration.
The text of the treaty also "encourages" nations to "apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms," causing gun rights advocates to fear that regulators will seek to limit not just so-called assault weapon ownership, but handguns and hunting rifles as well.
Trade in weapons under the treaty is to be refused to "unauthorized end use, including to individuals and groups who would commit terrorist acts." We have noted that a paper from the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would .... minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."
Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse"?
As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.
"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.
As we've said before, the U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the right to bear arms in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government. The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Somehow, assurances that this treaty won't violate our constitutional protections — from an administration that constantly tries to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights — does not reassure us.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily
a
It's time for civil disobedience, don't comply.
ReplyDelete