UN states fail to reach global arms trade treaty

[AliceInWonderland]

I think the problem is that this kind of agreements, while impotent to stop the flow of weapons to all kind of bad people, are used to block the international circulation of civilian legal firearms, with all kind of birocratic crap. So with such an agreement in place chances are you won't be able to buy much stuf coming from outside.
This is the actual purpose of this attempt. Restriction of nongovernment international firearms sales.

As if we don't have enough controls already. Whatever the UN does, the Chinese, the North Koreans.. Heck, even the Russians and Israelis wouldn't give a damn about it. And it's only the civilians who'll be getting shafted.

[Mein Teil]

That's is good news and all, but the AWB idea is not dead amongst some US senators. Remember I said if they couldn't get this done they'd try to find a way to regulate things to the same effect. They've started already:

Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

[antman311]

Why are people commenting on the article in Yahoo saying the US government would come and disarm all Americans if the treaty passed? It specifically addresses this issue and says it leaves countries to decide gun regulation within their own sovereign territory, which means none of that **** would happen. Are people that dumb?

[AliceInWonderland]

Why are people commenting on the article in Yahoo saying the US government would come and disarm all Americans if the treaty passed? It specifically addresses this issue and says it leaves countries to decide gun regulation within their own sovereign territory, which means none of that **** would happen. Are people that dumb?

Back read to post #5 and #15. It's unlikely for the government to take your firearms, but firearm and ammunition costs would likely go up, plus the fact that the anti guns have a hidden agenda in this. And why let someone continue to erode what's left of your freedom?

[curious george]

Honest question (as an American 2nd amendment supporter): What's the problem with the stipulations of the treaty, aside from the fact that it likely won't be that effective? Trying to actually look at this objectively.

When one reads the SAAMI chair's statement( http://saami.org/news/031912.cfm )the truth is that this potentially good (re warzone/genocidal types)treaty was sunk because the gungrabbers hijacked/tried to empose its ideology/agenda...., this was not in the scope,nor in the spirit of this agreement...

[Ardaingeal]

Why are people commenting on the article in Yahoo saying the US government would come and disarm all Americans if the treaty passed? It specifically addresses this issue and says it leaves countries to decide gun regulation within their own sovereign territory, which means none of that **** would happen. Are people that dumb?

This is kind of how I feel, though a couple of interesting points (such as SAAMI withdrawing its support) have been made here too.

[remo williams]

Honest question (as an American 2nd amendment supporter): What's the problem with the stipulations of the treaty, aside from the fact that it likely won't be that effective? Trying to actually look at this objectively.

The problem is multi-fold when read carefully. It's more about the omissions as well as what's there so no, it doesn't directly say no 2nd amandment, "we're gonna take your shyte."

"
Principles
Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:
The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;
2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;
3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;
4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and
5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner. "

link
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/25/u...#axzz21o2Odadu

This puts states rights above individual citizens inalienable rights as the Amendment bill of rights states. The wording and omission of such, are very important when it's a legal document. A treaty in this case, with over 95 countries who've not only adopted it, but have say. Because individual citizens are not mentioned, they aren't recognized. When it comes to enforcement of this treaty, it can be done so as stated, under international law. This runs not only parallel to state/national law under the constitution, but can superceed it to be in compliance to this international treaty. The closest this comes to individual ownership is within some specific cases. Of course, the interpretation of what constitutes such is no longer determined by your states in the final say.

" Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law; "

This sounds nice, but when you consider it would now be an international body determining the criteria for such, it leaves much open to third party discretion/determination. As handed down to the federal/states to be in compliance with the treaty. We already know too many cooks spoil the broth, and you'd have 95 of them.


"
Article 1
Goals and Objectives
Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market r to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,
The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:
- For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
- To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;
In order to:
- Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;
- Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering; "

It states, it's goal is to prevent human suffering, and as well,( within the document), combat. When street crime is considered combat, as many involved in this do, that leaves the door open to further reaching interpretation, implementation. Not to mention the above is negated by what's below this.

"

- B. Covered Activities
- 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”
- 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

And then there's this.

"
Article 17
Entry into Force
This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary. For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession. For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.
Article 18
Withdrawal and Duration
This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal. A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.
Article 19 Reservations
Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty. "

It's binding, and it's permanent. If you want out, you'll now have to provide a good reason for it, before it goes to vote ( majority or 2/3rds) . We've seen how the U.N. works in this fashion.

I hope I don't run afoul of the mods, but I wanted to point out just some of the key points of what is the rub here. I've only seen the reports that it didn't pass, but not what was released that was in it. Link is above to read the rest, and no, they're stunned, but not down with this. We'll see this again.

[drake88]

The UN is a corrupt, worthless institution.

[Ought Six]

The UN is a corrupt, worthless institution.

There are some here who will attack you viciously for speaking such a truth.