The United Nationals Small Arms Treaty is a very real, and very serious threat to our Second Amendment freedoms. And since there are many rumors and scams floating around the internet about a “UN gun grab”, it's important that gun owners know the real threat, and what to do about it.
Make no mistake, the idea that the United Nations is working to restrict our own Constitutional liberties is a very serious one. Their desire for an international arms treaty that would supercede our own Second Amendment is real, and — with the current Executive Branch we have — entirely possible. But don’t take our word for it.
Let’s start with the Arms Trade Treaty. The process for creating an ATT began in late 2006, against the strong opposition of John Bolton, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. But soon after President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took power, they reversed the American position and announced that the United States now supported moving forward with the ATT. That treaty will likely be completed in July 2011, in time for President Obama to sign it.
Nobody knows for sure what the ATT will contain, but based on what transpired this July at the Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting, it seems likely that the treaty will mandate microstamping—a requirement that will add about 200 to the cost of a gun.
That’s from David Kopel, a true heavyweight in the world of Second Amendment legal issues. If you don’t know of him or take him seriously, you should; his amicus brief was cited three times by the Supreme Court in the McDonald v Chicago ruling, in addition to a host of other writings on Second Amendment freedoms and court cases.
The point being, Mr. Kopel understands a real threat when he sees it, and he sees one here.
Another potential target for an ATT arms embargo is the United States. In a report written by IANSA member Barbara Frey, the U.N. Human Rights Council Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that gun laws in the United States are human-rights violations. According to the U.N., American gun-control laws (even in places like New York City) are so lax that they violate international human rights. Supposedly it is a human-rights violation for governments to allow crime victims or even police to shoot criminal predators such as rapists, arsonists and armed robbers. Based on the U.N.’s human-rights standards, if the criminal is only trying to rob you, rape you and burn your house, but not to murder you, then you must never be allowed to shoot him.
If the U.N. keeps to its schedule and finishes the ATT next summer, President Obama could then sign it on behalf of the United States. The ATT would become law in the United States if it were then ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate. Consequently, the 2010 Senate elections could help determine whether the American people fall under the power of the U.N. gun control regime.
To clarify a few things and state them plainly:
1) IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) spokesman Rebecca Peters: “we need to have fewer guns, but the guns that are in societies need to be under better control.
And that means that no — civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example.” What firearm does not have the ability to kill at 100 meters?
2) The UN believes it is a “human rights violation” to allow victims to protect themselves.
3) President Obama will most likely have the opportunity to sign this treaty in 2011 on behalf of the United States.
Think that’s bad? It gets worse.
A recent article in the Washington Post describes a meeting between anti-gun hero Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley, and 100 other mayors from around the world trying to determine how international figures can reshape American law to subvert our civil liberties.
Ebrard [Mexico City Mayor] joined Daley, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman and others in pressing for a resolution, approved by the mayors, to “seek redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world — including local, state and federal courts, and international courts — for damages caused to our countries, cities and communities by global trafficking of illegal guns.”
Note specifically the line “seek redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world.” This is not a joke; international groups want the ability to file suit against American companies who are producing a product that is not only completely legal, but a Constitutional right.
With the politicians we currently have in the House and Senate, do you trust something like this not to happen? Do you believe that they honestly have your best interests at heart? There should not be a moment’s hesitation in the answers to those questions, but we know that is not currently the case.
Please stand with us now to ensure that these international “human rights” schemes are stopped before they get started. And, worse yet, before it is too late.
Click here to sign the petition.