When Barack Obama signs the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty late this month, the force of his signature alone could suffice to nullify the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people. How is this possible if a 2/3rds vote by the Senate—that is, constitutionally mandated ratification– is required before the United States may become a legal party to any treaty?
Interested Americans have been told that the Arms Trade Treaty will regulate the international trade of conventional weapons, the purported goal being prevention of arms transfers to rogue or terrorist states. Naturally, one would think regulations intended only to manage and restrict the trade of weapons to dangerous, warlike or terror-supporting countries couldn’t possibly threaten the constitutionally protected right of American citizens to keep and bear arms.
However, in order to prevent the accumulation and export of possible contraband weapons, the Treaty mandates creation of a global arms catalogue– an international registry detailing the existence, history and ownership records of all conventional weapons. Every sale, every transfer of a weapon within the borders of the United States would be contained in this registry. The left have dreamed of such a national gun registry for decades and this would give it to them.
How could the gun-grabbing Obama Regime impose this clearly anti-2nd Amendment, Treaty-mandated arms registration scheme on the American people without the Senate first giving its advice and consent?
“When a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.” (1) This is language from Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted in 1969, 111 nations have ratified the Vienna Convention, a treaty which has become known as the “Treaty of Treaties” and is “…widely recognized as the authoritative guide vis-à-vis the formation and effects of treaties.” (2)
Many versed in international law argue that the “object and purpose” language of the Vienna Convention means that “…a nation that has signed a treaty is prohibited either from violating the treaty altogether or from violating the treaty’s core or important provisions.” (1) Although the United Nations have taken great pains to make certain that no specific Treaty language has made its way to the American public, a Spanish representatives made clear his own “object and purpose” when he said the UN “… will be happy to honestly contribute to reduce their number (weapons), [and] to regulate buying and sell of arms…” If this is what the completed Treaty hopes to achieve—and we can bet it will be—Barack Obama will have signed onto the most anti-gun rights document in the nation’s history. (3)
After he has signed the Treaty, Obama could use the “object and purpose” language of the Vienna Convention as an excuse to strictly adhere to all provisions contained in the Arms Treaty itself! That could include any and all United Nations mandates for the registration of guns, the licensing of owners, the regulation of sales, transport or usage—anything! Needless to say, such a scheme would remain Obama’s little secret until he has won the November election.
There can be no doubt that a re-elected Barack Hussein Obama would attempt to impose by means of executive fiat the unconstitutional terms of the unratified Arms Trade Treaty on the American public. After all, why not, as a cowardly congress has already permitted him every manner of abuse of power.
This could get interesting.