Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Can House Stop U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Gun Grab Threatening 2nd Amendment?

Second Amendment: A House resolution, as futile as it may be,  represents growing opposition to another administration bow to the U.N.  encroachment on U.S. sovereignty at the expense of its laws and even our  Constitution.

Treaties are ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the final  version of the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) may likely be signed by this  president and ratified by this Senate, especially if presented as a "sensible  restriction" on international arms trafficking with no impact on our Second  Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

But some House members are not going to let it happen without a justified  protest.

Before the House left for the Thanksgiving break, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa.,  unveiled a resolution to make the treaty not binding and let no federal funds  implement it unless the Senate consents and Congress passes implementing  legislation.

The resolution is co-sponsored by 76 other House members, including some  Democrats.

"There is considerable cause for alarm regarding the U.N.'s renewed efforts  to forge an Arms Trade Treaty that could trample the constitutional rights of  Americans and seriously compromise our national security and the security of our  allies, whom we will be less able to arm and less quick to defend due to the  restrictions placed on us by the ATT," Kelly said.

One of their key objections is with the requirement in the July draft of the  treaty — which will be the starting point for final negotiations — for each  member state to keep records on "end users," or gun purchasers, for a minimum of  10 years.

Hence, Americans who purchase an imported firearm may have to be registered  in the country of origin. Ammunition could also be tracked and logged the same  way.

We have argued, as do Kelly and his colleagues, that even if it applied only  to transfers of small arms between nations, would that mean restrictions on our  ability to aid allies such as Israel and Taiwan?

Would we be forbidden from aiding resistance movements around the world  rising up against the very dictators who support this treaty?

Read More: Investors Business Daily