Amendment 139: Opposing the UN ATT

M

mdd

New member
Here is a link to the senate roll call regarding the Inhofe amendment 139 to support the 2nd amendment and not participate in the U.N. arms trade treaty.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091

Both of my senators voted 'yea' in favor of supporting the second amendment. How did yours do? I have called and left my sentiments of appreciation at both of my senators' d.c. offices as well as at their regional offices here in Kansas. I would encourage you to do the same if it is deserved for your senator.
 
Thanks for the link. One of my senators was also one of the 9 dems that voted Yea. That deserves a thanks. There are zero (R) in the Nay count, that deserves notice by all of us.
 
I was honestly disgusted by the fact that there was a single nay at all...much less 46 of them. I am apalled at the fact there had to be an amendment brought to a roll call vote regarding whether or not to support our own constitution. Do these people not take an oath to support and defend the constitution? By voting nay have they not violated their oath of office?
 
One of my Senators voted 'Nay' and the other didn't vote.

From the Wiki article on the treaty:

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import 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." [18]

Given the senate votes were pretty much along party lines, it's getting clearer and clearer what some peoples' intentions are.
 
I am apalled at the fact there had to be an amendment brought to a roll call vote regarding whether or not to support our own constitution. Do these people not take an oath to support and defend the constitution? By voting nay have they not violated their oath of office?
Click to expand...
Being a bit more generous, some (most?) of those voting against the amendment probably don't think the treaty would violate the 2A. Therefore, they could, in their minds, vote against it while still supporting the Constitution.

I'll put a question to you -- Do you favor a bill to uphold the First Amendment by passing a bill legalizing child pornography? I would vote no because you can uphold the First Amendment without legalizing child pornography. Some of the senators undoubtedly believe they can support the 2A even with approval of the UN Treaty.
 
2ndSojurn -- you quote a "Wiki article on the treaty" without citing to it or linking to it. Fortunately, I guessed right. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N._Small_Arms_Treaty.

My real problem is that you did the classic misdirection of quoting something out of context. The article actually reads, in part:
Perhaps the largest source of civil society opposition to the ATT has come from the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In July 2012 ILA wrote that:

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import 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."
Click to expand...

Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.
Click to expand...
(internal citations omitted).

The article was not making the assertion that proponents of the treaty were making a "bald-faced lie." The article was quoting the NRA's lobbying arm. That's a big difference.

We don't need to stoop to these sorts of tactics to make our point. That only weakens legitimate arguments against the treaty and against gun control. We have the facts and the Constitution on our side.
 
Thank You Mdd

Thank You Mdd, I was happy to see that bouth the South Carolina Senators did the right thing and supported our Rights.

Lemmon from Rural South Carolina and Proud of It.
 
You are very welcome lemmon. These days we all need to stay on top of what is going on in Washington as much as possible because we know what the intent and desires of some would do to us if we stand back in the shadows and allow it to happen.
KyJim, I am not an attorney nor am I a constitutional scholar so please accept my response as that of nothing more than a hard working, honest, and reasonable man. My thoughts on your example are this: child pornography laws do not violate the first amendment because the child is not of legal age to consent to participate in such activities ergo the child is a victim of, not a participant in, child pornography. The reasonable man in me would ask when the last time was that anyone saw a five year old (for example) who wanted to participate in such activities? Personally I have yet to encounter one.
Violations of our second amendment rights would leave us as the victim. Although we are of age to make our own legally binding decisions, I highly doubt very many of us in the present company would willfully choose to obliterate our own freedoms. However I have definitely been wrong before so all I can say is that, if asked whether I wanted to relinquish my 2nd amendment rights willfully, the answer would be a resounding NO.
 
2ndsojourn -- No problem. Didn't mean to be too harsh.

mdd -- I did a poor job making my point. I was simply trying to point out that some of the senators might not think that the UN Treaty violates the Second Amendment so that they are not voting against the constitution when they voted against the resolution. Of course, some of them don't care a bit about the Second Amendment or other parts of the Constitution that are inconvenient to whatever agenda they have.
 
Mine generally just cancel each other out with one for and one against along party lines. This is no exception. :mad:
 
Thanks for the link. One of my senators was also one of the 9 dems that voted Yea. That deserves a thanks. There are zero (R) in the Nay count, that deserves notice by all of us.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you Mike or anyone else,

What I am saying is some of the reps voted YAY on your 2nd and thats good but, just look and see Who exactly has VOTED TO REMOVE YOUR 1st.. doesn't make much sense doe it?
 
Sorry to muddle a serious thread with humor but this thought just hit me and is a bit of a paradox. So some have voted to maintain our 2nd amendment while muzzling the 1st amendment.....what happens when the 2nd amendment is the one doing the talking? I.E. exercising the 1st amendment with the business end of the 2nd amendment. As I said, a bit of a humorous paradox at least in my own mind. But nobody accused me of being smart so I am usually entertained by simple things.
 
What I like about this vote is you had 53 yes, 46 no, Not to sign on the UN Treaty.

But to ratify the treaty you need 67 votes. (2/3s).

That means you have to get 20 senators to switch sides......kind of tells me the UN gun treaty is dead as far as our country is concerned.

By the way, both my senators voted YEH, but that's to be expected, this is Wyoming after all.
 
UN small arms treaty

This will be coming before the senate for ratification. I can tell you there will be strong pressure to get the senate to do so, and there will be a lot of deception to make it seem like it will not affect gun owners (it will, especially in imports of guns and ammunition from European countries.)

I hear about it in the news and there is an brief on what it contains but I am sure there is plenty of room to amend it to increase restrictions later on, if it isn't already overbearing as it is.

The UN makes up rules as it goes along.
 
The unfortunate part, at least with respect to imports, is that it doesn't depend on Senate ratification, but the ratification of other UN members. Anything coming from Europe, I think, is about to go away, because of the "end user" information requirement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
North Korea , Syria, and Iran voted no what about the United States ? I am very against this treaty, also why is there so little coverage of it ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top