Nations optimistic about UN global arms trade treaty deal

[dan_bgblue]

Linkage (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/optimism-in-un-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-is-said-to-go-along-with-deal/?test=latestnews)

Negotiators reconvened last week in a final attempt to reach a deal on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers.

U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private, said Wednesday the United States was virtually certain to go along with the latest text.

[CitizenBBN]

There was a late Senate amendment to their budget to to prevent the US from signing the deal. Obviously not binding, but I don't think the Senate is too thrilled about it. It passed so it's in the Senate budget.

No doubt the Obama administration will go along with it if at all possible. It's a way to force gun control on the nation whether we want it or not, whether it can pass Congress or not. It will be restrictions on our foreign policy that would nix it, not any worries about US civilians.

It's a horrible treaty, on so many levels. Not the least of which is it could be interpreted to prevent the US from supplying rebels and other non-governmental groups we want to support. Then of course is the absurd open ended ability to attack the 2nd Amendment. We'd have a treaty obligation to stop guns going to Mexico for example. Think Obama would support locking down the border to do it, or would he push gun registration? Duh.

It won't pass the Senate I don't think, but this has all along been the most dangerous angle the administration is pursuing to stop the 2nd Amendment. This is the "behind the scenes" gun control Obama referenced, or at least the cornerstone of it.

[suncat05]

For it to be ratified by the U.S. Senate will be the trick. Even though the Dems control the Senate I do not see them having the votes to make the U. S. a signatory to this treaty.
The NRA, GOA, NAGR and every other 2nd Amendment/gun rights group is in the ear of every Senator on this issue.

[dan_bgblue]

Chair suspends UN meeting after Iran, North Korea object to arms trade treaty (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/28/chair-suspends-un-meeting-after-iran-north-korea-object-to-arms-trade-treaty/?test=latestnews)

[CitizenBBN]

In an unexpected twist, Mexico proposed that the conference go ahead and adopt the treaty Thursday without the support of the three countries, saying there was no definition of "consensus." Several countries supported the idea, but the Russian delegation objected and called the proposal "a manipulation of consensus."

Kenya said "the will of the overwhelming majority is clear" and that a letter will be sent to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with a draft resolution asking the U.N. chief to bring the treaty before the General Assembly for adoption as soon as possible.

The Kenyan diplomat spoke on behalf of the United States, Britain, Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria and Norway.

"This is not failure," British Ambassador Jo Adamson said. "Today is success deferred, and deferred by not very long."


...

The draft would also require parties to the treaty to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/28/chair-suspends-un-meeting-after-iran-north-korea-object-to-arms-trade-treaty/?test=latestnews#ixzz2OtVwqR48

The statements above are all you need to know about what's going on:

1) Mexico REALLY wants this. The Mexico whose President has publicly called for US civilian gun control including specifically gun registration and weapons bans. Think they'd hesitate to cite it to push the US to civilian gun control?

2) The Kenyan rep was speaking on behalf of the US representative, which means the US will vote for this piece of trash.

3) The very last sentence tells you the key: it requires governments to prevent "diversion to the illicit market". You know, like criminals getting guns? Welcome to national registration and everything else they can get out of it.

There's a reason the US tabled it with lack of support going into the election and revived it directly exactl the next morning after Obama had won. Catch a clue. Feinstein already had the report ready to support her assault weapons ban pre-Newtown based on guns going to Mexico, using Fast and Furious as part of the basis for it. The Mexican government has been more vocal about wanting US gun control than Feinstein.

And now we have a treaty that if signed no US congress can overturn that would give the US government the requirement to keep guns off the "illicit market" and to prevent illegal smuggling to Mexico. It's exactly the law to fit what Feinstein was going to have to argue for on political grounds, that these guns were killing people in Mexico. Now they have a law they have to comply with, a dream for them.

The good news is the Senate can't ratify a treaty with a simple majority but only with 2/3rds, and that won't happen. The bad news is the Administration will use is to argue for conformance at every level esp. within the ATF at the rule promulgation level. Feinstein will still cite it, US signed or not, and the Mexico will still try to use it as leverage as well.

Thank God the Founders put in so many checks and balances. Both extremes have so many times tried to shove things down the throats of a nation that doesn't want it. This Administration is doggedly committed to gun control, witness this thing being revived the day after the election, and this is yet another attempt.

It's also very bad foreign policy for the US overall, and they seem blinded to that as well. Requirements for things like guns not being used against civilians could tie up our foreign policy use of weapons to support causes in the World Court and leave our actions open to UN review. It could be a disaster for our ability to support groups friendly to the US government.

The reason nations like Britain wants it is it will make it tougher to violate UN arms embargoes, but it costs too much to the US nation internally and our foreign policy. WAY too much.

[dan_bgblue]

Will he sign on or not? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/)

[dan_bgblue]

And Kerry says the US will sign on (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/)

Based in the current climate in the House and Senate, chances of ratification appear slim though.

[CitizenBBN]

And Kerry says the US will sign on (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/)

Based in the current climate in the House and Senate, chances of ratification appear slim though.

Very slim, 50 senators have already signed off on a letter saying they won't tolerate the treaty infringing on the 2nd amendment, which it does in many areas, but it won't keep Obama's signature from going on it and it will impact US gun owners and the 2nd Amendment even if the Senate doesn't ratify it.

First, once the treaty is signed by the President it can be submitted to the Senate at any time unless a President withdraws us. So Obama will have a few more years to see if the political wind changes enough. He doesn't have to submit it to the Foreign Relations Committee either, the Senate Leader could call for a floor vote and try to ram it through. Next, Even if the Senate never ratifies it the treaty can be cited as a basis for regulatory action at the State Department and elsewhere. While not legally binding it becomes an "international norm" and the position taken we should try to accommodate such a norm in spirit. We've seen Kyoto have a policy influence in the US even though the Senate never voted support and it was never ratified.

It will also have an impact b/c of the impact it has on other nations with whom we trade. If Germany signs on then the German government could limit exports to the US b/c the US isn't compliant with the treaty, which requires all kinds of things of nations for signatory nations to export to them. If the US doesn't meet treaty requirements the UN or the German government, with encouragement from the Administration, can block exports of civilian firearms to the US. This is a wonderful bonanza for the Obama Administration and anti-gunners, as it raises the prices of guns by restricting supply, and eliminates a lot of hated guns like SKS and AK weapons from Eastern Europe. But it will also eliminate Browning Hi Powers and a host of high end weapons if applied as it is written.

Whereas a pro-gun President would pressure the UN and other nations to not apply the treaty to the US market and would fight that the US is compliant with the terms and push to allow exports, Obama will be able to quietly support rulings that go against the US to prevent firearms imports.

Once it goes through at the UN we will see the Administration and Feinstein and the anti-gunners work through Mexico on their goals. Mexico is in a unique position to lobby against the US, and their President has called for US gun control and a gun registry. With the treaty in place at the UN he can appeal to the UN for sanctions and restrictions on US imports and no doubt a host of other things that the UN can apply as it sees fit.

I'll give a better example of how invasive it can be and we never pass it. To "prove" to the UN we are compliant we could see new regulations from the state department. Farfetched? We already have them. The State Department requires license filings beyond those of the ATF for a number of categories of things, including firearms "manufacturing" that encroaches on gunsmiths and the level of a little single guy doing re-bored barrels. Their license fees and approvals are far tougher than those issued by US law through the ATF, and are justified as part of a US trade treaty.

ATF approved the re-importation of 1 million US issue M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles sitting in South Korea (reviewed under Bush Admin), but Obama stopped it through action by Hillary Clinton and the State Department. They were banned in part b/c they "may fall into the wrong hands". Long guns including all "assault weapons" are used in about 1% of crimes and the M1 is about as unweildy a hold-up gun as you could design, but that was the justification used to limit a million guns that would be basic hunting and sporting rifles. Read that again: they banned importation of hunting and sporting rifles.

It isn't some conspiracy, it's real and has already happened. Obama has acted through foreign treaties to limit importation of exceptionally low risk firearms used 99% for hunting and sporting purpose. The State Department under Clinton has already expanded their regulation of the US domestic gun industry using foreign treaty "compliance" as the basis. This just opens the floodgates to deal with every type of civilian weapon versus narrow controls on the industry itself in areas like manufacture.

It's not speculation he will use this treaty for these ends. It's simply a continuation of his actions of the last 5 years using other, far less powerful foreign treaties to implement an anti-gun agenda on the US civilians and the domestic US gun industry. It's a fact, proven empirically and undeniable. If he can't get what he wants through the approval of the US Congress, the representatives of the People of the United States, he'll use the governments of Europe and the Third World to force it upon us. He knows what is best for us after all, even when we clearly don't.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW if anyone is interested in the existing use of foreign policy procedures and treaties to encroach on the US gun industry and the 2nd Amendment, the policy to which I was referring is called ITAR, the "INternational Traffic in Arms Regulations". It covers "defense related" items and was put in place in the Reagan administration. It was put there to deal with Cold War era exportation of defense items and technology. They didn't want people sending cruise missiles to Iran.

The problem is like every law/regulation it can be used to do oh so much more than it was intended to do. If you are a "gunsmith" in that you just repair guns you're OK, but if you start assembling AR-15 rifles for people you need a $2,500/yr ITAR license and registration with the State Department, plus all the fun paperwork and filings. Even though they are semi-auto and will never be exported or sold to a foreign military, you have to have an ITAR license as if you were going to export Stinger missiles.

It also covers ammunition, so if you are a small time ammo maker you need not just the ATF license, but all the ITAR licensing as well, even if you're just making civilian calibers in small batches. It has nothing to do with safety, just a bunch of fees and regs for making something that will never leave the US and certainly never endanger the US by having it sent to another country. Probably don't need a lot of 38 Special reloads in Iran either.

ITAR is not NEARLY as on target with US civilian firearms as this new Small Arms Treaty. It ended up overlapping small time one man shops who make custom guns for people and it isn't even a "UN Treaty", just a series of import/export agreements and regs in and between the US and other nations. Now imagine what a UN treaty, giving the power to file for sanctions and register complaints to governments in Mexico and Europe will do to us, even if we never formally ratify it. We're still a UN member, still non-compliant with an agreement that covers nations with which we trade. It will still impact us, and it gives Obama lots of ammunition in his battle against gun ownership even if the Senate tears it up and shoots it back to him as spitballs.

A decent summary of ITAR: http://www.firearmslawgroup.com/publications/small-arms-review/80-itar-what-is-it-and-why-do-i-need-to-pay

[dan_bgblue]

How in the world did Congress allow a procedure that allows a sitting president to sign a treaty and then sit on it come into being?

I can see nothing good in such a parliamentary procedure.

[CitizenBBN]

There are two delays in it. The President can wait often long amounts of time to sign the thing, which allows nations to politically time such commitments. Obama may sign now, but he may wait. He can also send it up for consideration as he chooses, and I'm pretty sure a President can submit a treaty as many times as he wants. A "no" vote is really just a "not yes" vote. That's true for any legislation of course, so it's not really any different, it's just more glaring in the case of treaties.

More than half the Senate has already rejected it, much less 2/3rds voting for it, but it shows the gap between the country and Obama on this issue. The treaty has massive flaws that impact both the 2nd Amendment and the US' ability to transfer arms to support pro-US groups.

For example, the treaty arguably would prevent arming the Syrian rebels, at least with small arms and some heavy equipment. The treaty has all kinds of vague language about nations taking action to keep guns off the illicit market and requires exporters to consider such things. I'm betting the currently UN recognized Syrian government considers such transfers illicit. That's why Third World nations who you would never think are for "arms control" are for it, b/c they're for their regimes controlling the arms as opposed to opposition groups and rebels.


In fact the Syria situation is exactly this treaty's stated purpose, preventing the "illicit" trade in arms, where "illicit" is defined by the regime in power. It doesn't take much effort to look at how much that impacts US foreign policy action. We arm groups around the world and have done so for a long time as a fundamental part of our foreign policy, and we are far from the only nation doing so. This impacts all of that in murky ways that can only help our enemies.

That doesn't even begin to address the 2nd Amendment nightmares, like the requirement governments "take steps" to "insure" weapons don't find their way to the "illicit market". In the US the "illicit market" is the guns sold and used by criminals. We have to take steps right? Well shouldn't that include a registry, prohibiting weapon groups altogether? What are we going to do to reduce the move of weapons to the "illicit market" that doesn't include pretty much nightmare anti-2nd Amendment laws? Do we believe Feinstein will argue for tougher sentencing to discourage theft? Of course not. She had a typed up bill to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban based on guns going to Mexico on purely moral grounds. Now she'll drop her goal of "rounding up every one of them [guns]" from "Mr. and Mrs. America" with the full power of a treaty with which we must comply?

The treaty is horrible for the US on both domestic Constitutional and foreign policy grounds. I don't see one thing it does to advance US interests. We're an arms EXPORTER, the biggest, and we use our arms industry as a key part of our foreign policy. We are also unique in the civilized world by having the right to bear arms. This treaty is bad for both, written for nations that are not the US to help control the US, and Obama can't wait to hand them that control over both our domestic view of human liberty and our ability to execute our foreign policy goals.

Any President who puts America first, liberal or conservative, would scoff at this broadly worded agreement to let the UN determine to who we provide weapons and how we manage firearms within our borders. Even an anti-gun President should reject it on foreign policy grounds. Of course Obama knows it wont' pass the Senate, so this is politics. He'll sign it and support it and shore up his anti-gun supporters, and it may give him an anti-gun end run around the American People and the Congress, which just handed him a severe political ass whipping when he tried to pursue a direct legislative agenda without risking foreign policy flexibility b/c it will never be ratified.

Nothing but cold politics, and anti-American cold politics at that if you ask me b/c IMO if the Senate did vote for it he'd dance in the streets with glee. He'd love nothing more than to turn us into a national gun free zone and an impotent nation that cannot do things like export weapons to pro-US regimes who would then go out and start wars with them.

[CitizenBBN]

And Kerry says the US will sign on (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/)

Based in the current climate in the House and Senate, chances of ratification appear slim though.

One small example of the lunacy of the language of this thing is in that article:

It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.


Prohibits export of weapons that "could be used in attacks on civilians"? Technically any weapon that is exported to the US civilian market "could be used in attacks on civilians." taking that language at face value within the treaty, and there are multiple similarly insanely broad statements in it, it outright bans the export of weapons to any civilian gun market. there's no way to insure that a gun coming to the US civilian market "cannot be used in attacks on civilians" or schools or hospitals. How can a weapon be guaranteed to never be used in an attack on a school or hospital exactly? Any weapon, sold to a civilian or a law enforcement agency? They get weapons stolen too, just as ATF.

The language as written all but bans the sale of conventional weapons. They did it so when the nation in question protests in the UN for action they have grounds pretty much no matter what efforts are taken, what kind of small arms may be in question. It covers everything from single shot 300 year old muzzle loaders to modern semi-autos and has broad absolutes like this one where "could be used" becomes the standard. If the nations in question don't care to complain to the UN, and others aren't involved, then nothing really happens, but if a nation does want to try to stop a sale they have all the grounds in the world to do so. So Syria could complain to the UN about the US sending guns, but then trade with Iran and nothing happens b/c no one is complaining, and if we do it gets buried in committees and they ignore the rulings and by the time any sanctions are started the war is over and the issue is dead one way or the other.

The language is shockingly bad. Well not really given it's from the UN, but it's shockingly bad by US standards.

[dan_bgblue]

Actually I was thinking on this last night, and I see no reason it would not affect bows and arrows, crossbows, pellet guns, and sling shots. I did not see anything that stated gunpowder had to be involved in deciding what weapons to ban

[CitizenBBN]

An update on my hijack about the re-import of the M1s. Rep. Lummis of Wyoming has introduced a bill to allow importation of Curio & Relic list weapons into the US without State Department approval. It's the right decision, as the C&R list is created and managed by ATF and lists firearms that are dated and considered more in the category of collectibles that may not need the same scrutiny of modern firearms. If there is a firearm that is at issue it is properly handled by ATF through this long established listing process.

The State Department has no business regulating US civilian gun ownership. I find it esp. funny they're blocking the import of the M1/M2 b/c in 1996 the Civilian Marksmanship Program was set up by the federal government to, among other things, provide surplus M1s and M1 carbines to youth programs. The federal government has been directly subsidizing the ownership of these specific rifles and the program from the outset was focused on providing them to youth but Hillary Clinton deemed them a public safety risk.

Now if someone can explain why the State Department thinks it has any input into public safety....

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/5/bill-introduced-to-get-state-department-out-of-the-gun-control-business.aspx

[DanISSELisdaman]

http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/07/obama-to-ignore-senate-sign-2nd-amendment-violating-u-n-gun-treaty/

[KeithKSR]

International laws passed by the UN aren't worth the paper they are written on. Look at all the International laws that Iran, Iraq, North Korea and others blatantly ignore.

[dan_bgblue]

Kerry to sign treaty despite opposition in Congress (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/)

[CitizenBBN]

Kerry to sign treaty despite opposition in Congress (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/)

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

...

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market.


Is it really that hard to see how these two statements cannot exist in the same space time? The law REQUIRES states to take measures to prevent weapons from reaching the "illicit market", but doesn't explicitly regulate domestic use of weaponry? It by definition regulates domestic use of weaponry. With that requirement the President of Mexico could file a complaint with the UN that we aren't following the treaty and the UN could decide our domestic gun laws aren't stringent enough, requiring a gun registry or whatever else they think keeps us compliant. Now we can tell them to pound sand, but the UN could hold us in breach of the treaty if enough of them decided our domestic laws let guns enter the illicit market and got to Mexican cartels.

her statements are just the mindless regurgitation of points, not really writing. The pitch all along has been "this isn't about civilian/domestic gun use", except when you read the treaty it's ALL ABOUT it. Another clause:

The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

Given that any gun imported into the US for civilians sale meets that definition, it would seem to make it illegal for any imported firearms to be sold to US civilians, or really any civilians anywhere. What gun cannot be used to "attack" a school or hospital? It literally covers any weapon of any kind with that mandate. I'm presuming they'll exempt sale to THEIR governments b/c those guns are for government use and thus won't be used in attacks (yeah, right), but again it could be used to shut down imports of any civilian firearms in any country.

Which is why this is such bad law, beyond gun control issues in the US. it's typical UN doublespeak, lots of contradictory or misleading clauses that let the various supporters further their political goals.

She points out Congo and Sudan are likely to sign. OF COURSE they're going to sign. The law effectively makes it illegal for anyone to provide guns to anyone in their country BUT their recognized government, which means no more CIA or other nation's shipments to rebels. It helps entrench their governments, which is why you have nations like Iran and Cuba and Congo all pushing this treaty. It's to tie the US' hands in providing weapons to their internal enemies and entrench their regimes.

Anyone think Diane Feinstein is so strongly supportive of this treaty b/c of the French selling guns to Sudanese rebels? Anyone? No, this treaty is designed internationally to protect repressive regimes from rebellion and civil war, and domestically to force international standards of gun ownership down our throat. As Iv'e said many times, the Mexican President has called many times for a US gun registry, with this treaty in place he could argue it is a required as a matter of law and does anyone think England and France and Cuba think it's NOT OK to register gun owners when it comes to a vote?

The only good news is that the Senate won't vote it through, I doubt Reid even takes it to a vote. Obama will point to the signing of it to keep the support of his anti-gun base, but it's such a bad treaty on every level I think even moderate Senators see it's a horrible, typically failed UN policy initiative best used to line bird cages.

With this treaty Obama himself wouldn't have been able to arm Libyan rebels. It would cripple a cornerstone of US foreign policy (providing weapons to non-governmental groups aligned with our interests) and open the 2nd Amendment to UN votes. The fact that even Obama hasn't laughed this thing out existence shows how pitiful his leadership really is for this nation on so many levels.

[dan_bgblue]

Senators say Treaty will not be ratified (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/18/good-news-from-washington-un-arms-trade-treaty-doa-in-us-senate/?intcmp=HPBucket)

[UKHistory]

Well it is good to be against the President again. What a horrible treaty.

I will put our Bill of Rights over any damn UN treaty. My rights as an American trump anything else.

It is time to arm and start stock piling ammo--if there is any less.

A former Nazi prosecutor gave me a tour of the holocaust museum a few years ago. My immediate reaction after seeing the powerful exhibits was: thank God for the second amendment.

First thing dictators do is take the guns. I am not one to say that Obama wants to create a dictatorship but forces in this country are moving to strangle our liberty.

A treat like this is one such way.

To Hell with what Mexico wants.

[jazyd]

If Obama signs, it isn't legal until the senate ratifies it, is that correct? And where does McConnell stand

[UKHistory]

That is correct. I don't think it is binding on the US unless the Senate ratifies the treaty.

I would be very shocked if Mitch McConnell favored this treaty that violates the second amendment.


If Obama signs, it isn't legal until the senate ratifies it, is that correct? And where does McConnell stand

[CitizenBBN]

It's not "the law", but a President just signing it gives it considerable influence. Per the Vienna Convention by signing it, even if unratified, we do have some obligations as a signatory nation. Primarily we have an obligation to not "defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty. Combined with the fact that this definition of behavior will be codified as the international 'norm', Obama will have a good deal of ability to push for things under the guise of this treaty whether the Senate takes it up for debate or not.

The US is a signator to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but it has never been ratified. Yet we adhere to it as a matter of Administration policy and have done so for decades. The EPA puts out standards based on Kyoto despite us never ratifying the treaty b/c it is seen as an international norm, a standard that has legitimacy simply b/c other nations have agreed to it.

There are several areas in which this treaty can impact us even if the Senate never passes it (which they won't):

-- Even if we take no action whatsoever, this treaty mandates nations to only sell small arms to nations that meet certain criteria. It could easily be argued the US market does not meet them, esp. the part about taking steps to keep guns out of the illegal market b/c we don't have registration. Canada has refused to sign at all b/c they just did away with registration and feel this treaty basically requires it.

So it's possible Germany or Italy would be required to stop selling to the US market b/c we don't meet the treaty standards. It could limit all kinds of imports.

-- A nation like Mexico can argue at the UN that we are defeating the "object and purpose" of the treaty even if we don't ratify it by not having registration. The Mexican President has called for a US gun registry, he could argue that the flow of guns to his country from the US market is defeating the object and purpose and that we are required to take action. Anyone think Obama would oppose that decision by the UN Or would he welcome with open arms a UN vote saying we need more gun control? Sure we could fight it in Congress, but it gives him a stronger position.

-- The Gun Control Act of 68 gives the Administration a lot of power. He could try to implement a registry of all purchases without any Congressional approval. it would get fought in the courts but courts care about stuff like signed treaties, it could help his case. I think the current SCOTUS would shoot it down, but that takes years and international law would be in his favor.

-- Beyond the GCA there are myriad things the State Dept can do to hurt both imports but also hurt US gun and ammo companies through exports. He could stop exports to nations based on the treaty standards and make it harder for those companies to survive, try to strangle them financially the same way the anti-gunners tried in the 80s to sue them out of existence.

I expect some of this to happen b/c he's shown he will go through the State Dept like with the M1 re-importation b/c it distances himself from it politically and doesn't garner the big "gun ban" headline. State has all kinds of rules that can be used to enforce the treaty without Congress passing a thing.


Right now I think he has bigger fish to fry and wont' use his political chips on the gun issue, but until a President gets in office who will un-sign this treaty like Bush II did with the World Court it could be problematic. If we un-sign it, which a new PResident can do with the same easy stroke of a pen, then we aren't beholden to it at all. Other nations who are can still limit exports to our market, but there is no legal leverage on us.

[dan_bgblue]

I guess they decided on a fire sale before the treaty takes hold (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/26/security-concerns-raised-amid-surge-in-us-arms-deals-abroad/?intcmp=latestnews)

Is the administration schizoid or just naive?

[KeithKSR]

By signing the treaty Obama could find himself a candidate for impeachment. He has sworn to uphold the Constitution and that includes the 2nd Amendment.

Obama has already violated the treaty he has been backing. The Egyptians have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, and Obama sent Morsi arms.

[Doc]

I'd expect nothing less from this Nobel peace prize recipient

[CitizenBBN]

I guess they decided on a fire sale before the treaty takes hold (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/26/security-concerns-raised-amid-surge-in-us-arms-deals-abroad/?intcmp=latestnews)

Is the administration schizoid or just naive?

I see it as proof positive that the treaty was never about foreign arms sales for this Administration but was a way to push the domestic anti-gun agenda from the start. The Administration clearly has no intention of limiting arms sales to governments and it's doubtful we see them stop funneling weapons even to pro US insurgents, which are the 2 cornerstones of the treaty from the perspective of the other supporting nations.

So why support it? It's possible to maybe use it against China and Russia but likely not as we do the same thing they do at a far larger scale. It's not like the UN assembly will vote with the US and against Russia and China on such things.

The only place where this treaty is consistent with the goals and ACTIONS of this Administration is when we look at how the treaty would apply to US gun laws. it's completely contrary to what they are doing with foreign sales and governments, but has language on registration and such that is wholly consistent with their domestic proposals.

The only other explanation is that they are schizoid, which is unlikely at best. This Administration has been vicious in its enforcement of its goals internally, going after reporters to find dissension in the ranks and insure everyone sticks to the plan at every level. They've been more in control of the bureaucracy than any other administration in recent history, they are the historical opposite of schizoid in their actions. They are incredibly consistent and well managed when it comes to policy implementation.

This has always been about the domestic gun agenda. The Small Arms Treaty is an end run, trying to use foreign law to accomplish what they cannot pass through Congress. Anyone who thinks they think twice about imposing what they think is best on Americans even if it requires stripping us of our representative rights to do so is naive and deluded. The ends justify the means, and this is their best means for getting around that pesky 2nd Amendment other than changing SCOTUS' makeup, which of course they'd love to do.

It's the only explanation that aligns the treaty's language and powers to the Administration's policies. It's not hard to see as long as you stick to the facts of their actions and ignore the rhetoric.