UN approves arms trade treaty

Rick Moran
It's become a bugaboo for many gun rights activists, which means it will have trouble getting Senate approval. And I see the slippery slope that the UN arms trade treaty represents - that future treaties might be aimed at domestic arms traders - but what are the chances that UN blue helmets - or US police or the military - will come traipsing into our homes to take our guns, or that the government will establish a gun registry?

Sorry, but I don't see what all the hub-bub is about. The treaty targets arms exports, not our domestic Second Amendment rights. And whatever miniscule chance that the treaty would be enforced in that fashion has to be weighed against the good it might do in countries where the illegal arms trade  is costing thousands of lives.

The Hill:

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who sponsored the budget amendment. 

"It's time the Obama administration recognizes it is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights."

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, warned Obama not to sign it.

"If you sign it, and if the U.S. Senate ratifies the treaty, Texas will lead the charge to have the treaty overturned in court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution," Abbott wrote to the president.

[...]

Treaty advocates say it only applies to arms exports and would have no impact on domestic gun rights. 

"As the United States has required from the outset of these negotiations, nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Kerry said.

It could make it more difficult for Americans to import certain firearms from other countries that join the treaty, however -- though that would be the case regardless of whether it is ratified by the U.S.

The American Bar Association points out that U.S. arms importers are already required to share final recipient information with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

As long as the NRA is pushing this specious interpretation of the treaty, it doesn't have a ghost of a chance of passage.

It's become a bugaboo for many gun rights activists, which means it will have trouble getting Senate approval. And I see the slippery slope that the UN arms trade treaty represents - that future treaties might be aimed at domestic arms traders - but what are the chances that UN blue helmets - or US police or the military - will come traipsing into our homes to take our guns, or that the government will establish a gun registry?

Sorry, but I don't see what all the hub-bub is about. The treaty targets arms exports, not our domestic Second Amendment rights. And whatever miniscule chance that the treaty would be enforced in that fashion has to be weighed against the good it might do in countries where the illegal arms trade  is costing thousands of lives.

The Hill:

"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who sponsored the budget amendment. 

"It's time the Obama administration recognizes it is already a non-starter, and Americans will not stand for internationalists limiting and infringing upon their Constitutional rights."

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, warned Obama not to sign it.

"If you sign it, and if the U.S. Senate ratifies the treaty, Texas will lead the charge to have the treaty overturned in court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution," Abbott wrote to the president.

[...]

Treaty advocates say it only applies to arms exports and would have no impact on domestic gun rights. 

"As the United States has required from the outset of these negotiations, nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Kerry said.

It could make it more difficult for Americans to import certain firearms from other countries that join the treaty, however -- though that would be the case regardless of whether it is ratified by the U.S.

The American Bar Association points out that U.S. arms importers are already required to share final recipient information with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

As long as the NRA is pushing this specious interpretation of the treaty, it doesn't have a ghost of a chance of passage.