In 2006, the United Nations decided it was time to explore “the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.”
The Bush administration voted against the creation of this proposed Arms Trade Treaty, believing that such oversight would be more productive on a national level. But on October 30th, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama reversed course, quite possibly turning the sovereignty of the United States, its Constitution and the rights of its gun owning public over to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the member states. Many believe this decision to represent a serious threat to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
Advertisement-content continues below
Claiming that the UN treaty would affect only international arms trafficking, Hillary Clinton said, “conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms.” But former UN Ambassador John Bolton is not buying that the treaty’s aims are purely international. In an interview with NRA News, Bolton stated, “the administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nations, but there’s no doubt…that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” He continued, “many of the implications of these negotiations are very much in their domestic application.”
Former congressman Bob Barr agrees with Bolton. “Even though [treaty advocates] all say ‘We are not going to involve domestic laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won’t be affected by all this,’ that’s nonsense,” he says. “There’s no way…to ensure that firearm transfers internationally don’t fall into the hands of people that the UN doesn’t like…unless you have some sort of national regulation and national tracking.”
Taking it even further, Bolton states:
[A]fter the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it…requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.
In July of 2010, Julianne Versnel, the Director of Operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, represented the foundation as an NGO delegate at the UN Arms Trade Treaty meeting. Her report is chilling to say the least. She writes:
[T]here appears to be little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule…and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals…If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the US Senate, this UN treaty would be the law.
We know the Obama regime will sign on to this assault on the 2nd amendment. The vote of Republican senators will decide the outcome.