Amendment 139: Opposing the UN ATT

Those three voted no because if the treaty is fully enforced and followed by the countries that signed it, it will be very hard for them to aquire military technology. And by that I mean everything from small arms to helicopter gunships.
 
Russia, China, and India have all abstained from voting, as have several Central American states. There are some real concerns with the language of the treaty.

That said, yeah, I'm against it. It's meddling. However, no draft I've read has had any mention of regulating arms within the borders of a country. This is about transfers from one nation-state to another.
 
Transfers like Glocks and others to the USA?
Click to expand...
The language is somewhat vague, but on-the-books transfers like that don't look like they'll be affected. They're going after shady hijinks like, say, the stuff we pulled in Central America during the Cold War.
 
IMO, it invites the UN to meddle in domestic affairs. There is some language that causes me serious concerns:
Article 2
Scope
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons
Click to expand...
Article 5
General Implementation . . . .
3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.
Click to expand...
4. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms. No national definition of any of the categories covered in Article 2 (1) shall cover less than the descriptions used in the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.
Click to expand...
Article 8
Import
1. 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.
2. Each importing State Party shall take measures that will allow it to regulate, where
necessary, imports under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article 2(1). Such measures may include national control lists or import systems.
Click to expand...
Article 11
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and
regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are
transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),
importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/d...r_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf
 
Tom Servo said:
Russia, China, and India have all abstained from voting, as have several Central American states. There are some real concerns with the language of the treaty.
Click to expand...

Somewhat irreverently, I commented that the reason the above nations abstained from voting was that they made the most money selling to the Syrians, North Koreans, and Libyans.

I doubt Glock will be affected since they go from Austria, to Smyra, to distributors. Seems like end user stuff is all squared away there.

I agree with Tom, that the treaty seems mainly to be designed to prevent a guy like Colonel North in trading cocain for arms to trade for hostages.

Still not a fan though.

UN sponsored disarmament hasn't done a darn thing to stop genocide in Africa, doubt this helps either.
 
What are the odds of the ATT being forced upon us? I don't mean to sound like my tinfoil hat is on too tightly, honestly. For instance, our soldiers are automatically members of the UN military. Just remember Michael New from a few years back; http://www.mikenew.com/meet.html
Since our service members are automatically a part of the UN, could they and their homes be subjected to this? I understand that a soldier is under the UCMJ and not strictly the constitution. Still, is there some caveat that could be used to circumvent the constitution for citizens in regard to the ATT? Again, I don't ask this to sound like a conspiracy theorist, these are just honest questions, so keep the lambasting to a minimum. :)
 
"Even some supporters conceded that the highly complicated negotiations forced compromises that left significant loopholes. The treaty focuses on sales, for example, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including as gifts, loans, leases and aid."

"The treaty's ratification prospects in the Senate appear bleak, at least in the short term, in part because of opposition by the gun lobby. More than 50 senators signaled months ago that they would oppose the treaty --- more than enough to defeat it, since 67 senators must ratify it."

Quote: The New York Times INTERNATIONAL Wednesday, April 3, 2013
 
Last edited:
Both of my crap senators here in new york voted nae. They don't have a clue.
Schumer is one of the biggest anti gun senators there is and he has taken Gillibrand right along with him. They both need to be voted out.
 
Just had a thread shut down (completely fairly, since this thread contains discussion of the pros/cons of ATT) and wanted to ask what the main issues are that cause such vociferous opposition - anyone shed any light?

I get the point that the language is rather vague for this sort of treaty, some of the stuff Spats Mcgee posted above is pretty wooly language. Personally, I don't see how the language is dangerously vague in terms of domestic rights, though (e.g. given that the purpose of the treaty is international commerce, it seems obvious that the vague language around article 5.3 is about effective import/export control, rather than, say, a national registry.)

As I understand it, the whole purpose of the ATT is international arms commerce between states, not civilian populations. So, help me understand, what are the main points of contention here?
 
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.
Click to expand...
You and I are the "end users," Scouse.
 
So it is based on the idea that this might force the USA to impose registration/record keeping?

Ok, I get that - though I would have thought that the caveats about not imposing on domestic laws and the woolyness of the language itself ("as appropriate" etc) would mean that this would only become a 2A issue if US politicians deliberately went out of their way to ensure it was - which if they are going to do, they are going to do regardless of any UN treary. Thats the way it strikes me, anyway.

I do see how the language in the treaty is causing problems though, it must have been obvious that "records on end users" would get people stressed out.
 
Yeah, I may sound a little tinfoilhattish on this, and that's OK. With that said, however, my recollection is that not only would the US be encouraged (or required) to compile a list of "end users" for its "national control system," but it might also be encouraged to share that list with exporting countries in the spirit of "international cooperation." (I may be wrong on that part, though.) I just don't see any reason for the US gov't to send my name to the UN, or Brazil, or Croatia, or any other place from which one of my guns might hail. Easiest solution: don't ratify the treaty.
 
Oh, I agree one hundred percent Spats, heck I got my k-pot lined with tin-foil if the Senate ever ratifies the treaty, but I don't see the Senate ratifying said treaty.
 
Given the US domestic debate, I totally see how that is an issue.

In the end though, the US is never going to do anything just because the UN says so, countries duck out of bits of treaties all the time. Personally, I can't see the US government sending lists of its citizens to anyone.

Anyway, thanks for distilling the objections down for me there.
 
What gets me is that this treaty dosent seem to be getting much publicity, I have not seen it on the news or heard It mentioned on the radio. The Asault Weapons Ban is being broadcast loud and clear. I smell a Rat !
 
In Reid Vs. Covert SCOTUS ruled no treaty over-rules the US Constitution.


Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:
Click to expand...


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html
 
While I agree that, at least in theory, no treaty can override the Constitution, it's the "in theory" part that worries me. Here's what I mean: Should SCOTUS rule that full registration and may-issue permitting by the federal gov't is not in violation of the 2A, then the treaty could (at least arguably) require date on the "end users" to be compiled and transmitted to exporting countries. Again, easy solution=don't ratify the treaty.
 
See page 2 of the treaty:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top