Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


UN Small Arms Trade Treaty Opposed by 130 Members of the House of Representatives

day dreamer
day dreamer
Moderator
Moderator


Posts : 3197
Join date : 2012-12-19

UN Small Arms Trade Treaty Opposed by 130 Members of the House of Representatives Empty UN Small Arms Trade Treaty Opposed by 130 Members of the House of Representatives

Post by day dreamer Mon 03 Jun 2013, 11:39 am

UN Small Arms Trade Treaty Opposed by 130 Members of
the House of Representatives



Posted on June 2, 2013 by Tim Brown




The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is scheduled
to be signed by Barack Obama on June 4, this Monday. He has already said he will
sign it. However, the United States Senate passed a resolution that they will not ratify the
document
. Now a
letter
has been sent to Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
by 130 members of the House of Representatives opposing the ATT.
On May 30 the 130 congressmen wrote to
remind both Obama and Kerry that they are supposed to be “defenders of the
sovereignty of the United States and as such the
representatives wrote to “express…grave concern about the dangers posed by the
United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty.”

According to the letter, “Our country’s sovereignty, and the protections it
affords our individual freedoms, including those recognized by the Second
Amendment, must not be infringed.”

The letter then went on to cite three reasons not to sign the treaty:

<blockquote>

  1. The treaty as adopted by the
    General
    Assembly is deeply flawed.
  2. The treaty suffers from vagueness.
  3. The procedure by which the treaty was adopted
    violates a red line set out by Obama’s own
    administration.
</blockquote>
The congressmen expounded on the flaws of the treaty. They wrote, “It
includes only a weak preambular reference to the lawful ownership and use of,
and trade in, firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, or personal
self-defense, as inherent rights. It frequently employs the term “end users,”
which can refer to individual firearms owners, and, in its sixth Principle, it
creates a national “responsibility” to “prevent … diversion” of firearms, a
requirement that could be used to justify the imposition of further controls
within the United States.”

“This risk is enhanced by Article 5.1, which requires nations party to the
treaty to implement it in accordance with this principle,” the letter reads. “We
know that, in the final March negotiating conference, your administration
opposed a number of these treaty elements: we do not believe that your
administration should now support them by signing the treaty.”

The letter also points out that “in Article 20.3, allows amendments by a
three-quarters majority vote. We note that Article 20.4 makes it clear that
amendments are binding only on those nations that accept them, but we do not
regard this as an adequate safeguard.”

The vagueness of the treaty was also pointed out. “It defines none of the
terms essential to interpreting or implementing it, or defines them only by
reference to terms that are themselves undefined. This means that, by becoming
party to the treaty, the United States would be accepting commitments that are
inherently unclear.”

By being unclear, it would thus open the US to repeated charges of breach of
faith, and no doubt it would also place pressure on the US to adopt new
interpretations or amendments to the treaty.

Specifically the congressmen point out Article 7.1 (b)(i) and (ii) of the
treaty, which requires nations party to the treaty to assess whether exports
could be used to “commit or facilitate a serious violation of international
humanitarian law,” or of “international human rights law.”

As for the violation of the “red line” set by the Obama administration, well
they used former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s owns word to bolster their
claim, citing Obama’s support for the negotiation of the treaty. Clinton stated
in October of 2009:

<blockquote>
“As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus
decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards
that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who
would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations.
Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to
avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export
arms irresponsibly.”
</blockquote>
They further pressed Obama’s hypocrisy in the matter by stating “the State
Department noted that consensus was necessary to provide “the opportunity to
promote the same high standards for the entire international community.” But
when the March 2013 negotiating conference failed to reach a consensus
agreement, your administration supported the move to adopt the treaty through
the U.N. General Assembly, where opponents and abstainers included many of the
world’s most important and irresponsible arms importers and exporters, including
Iran, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, and Egypt.”

Therefore, the US didn’t even come close to ensuring “that all countries can
be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation.”

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) issued a statement regarding the letter he authored
and submitted:

<blockquote>
“As the signing period for the ATT gets underway next week, President Obama
has an opportunity to take a monumental stand for our national sovereignty and
our Constitutional rights. The ATT threatens both of these things and should be
fully rejected. Any treaty that would put the United States–the world’s
defender of peace and freedom–on equal footing with the world’s worst
dictatorships and terror-sponsors ought to be condemned, dismissed, and
ultimately denied our country’s signature. I sincerely hope the
administration will listen to the very real objections my colleagues from both
parties in Congress share and rightly decide that joining the ATT is not at all
in America’s interest.”
</blockquote>
The letter’s signatures included Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte
(R-VA), Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), and Rules
Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX).

Rep. Steve Stockman, who also signed the letter, said “The right to keep and
bear arms is granted by God and protecting from government aggression by the
Constitution. It is not subject to the whims of global totalitarians
massed in New York City. I oppose any UN treaty touching the right to keep and
bear arms. It’s beyond time for the United States to withdraw
from the UN
.”

I completely agree with his assessment. However, once a treaty is signed by a
president, it normally remains available for the Senate to ratify. This treaty
must not only not be ratified, but it must be completely removed
off the table from any future ratification.

Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C.
Clothesline.



http://dcclothesline.com/2013/06/02/un-small-arms-trade-treaty-opposed-by-130-members-of-the-house-of-representatives/

    Current date/time is Sat 26 Nov 2022, 1:42 pm