Image 01 Image 03

Who’s up for an International Gun Registry?

Who’s up for an International Gun Registry?

Arms Trade Treaty is UN’s Christmas Present to America

While most Americans were enjoying Christmas Eve, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty went into effect.

On the surface, the treaty is supposed to help regulate international arms trade but Awr Hawkins of Breitbart reports that there’s more than meets the eye (emphasis is mine):

Gun Control Groups Cheer as UN Arms Trade Treaty Takes Effect

Gun control groups cheered as the UN Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Christmas Eve.

Although the treaty’s ubiquitous aim is regulation of the export and import of small arms for signatories, Breitbart News has previously reported the treaty poses international gun control and, to be enforceable, will require the creation of an international gun registry.

According to Reuters, Control Arms’ Anna Macdonald praised the treaty, saying, “Campaigners have been pushing for this moment for a decade.” She said the treaty could usher in the “dawn of a new era” if “robustly implemented.” She also indicated the UN treaty subjugates arms trade to “international law.”

Although the Obama administration has signed on to the treaty, Hawkins reports that Republican Senator James Inhofe prevented the senate from ratifying it.

Liberal news outlet The New Republic describes the treaty as ‘most reasonable’ but controversy has followed the plan for over a year.

In June of 2013, Chris W. Cox of The Hill wrote this:

U.N. arms treaty a direct threat to American gun ownership

Oxfam America has long served as a reliable cheerleader for nearly all misguided United Nations policy. However, Oxfam America President Raymond Offenheiser’s Friday op-ed (“President should ignore fear mongering and sign arms treaty”) is an exceptional illustration of this blind allegiance. Offenheiser wants us to simultaneously believe the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is both the single most important tool to cracking down on war crimes and that the treaty has absolutely no teeth whatsoever. That’s twisted logic for sure. Here’s the truth.

The Arms Trade Treaty directly threatens the Second Amendment rights and privacy of American gun owners. Article 12 of the treaty “encourages” signatory nations to compile “records” of all “end users” of firearms imported into their county — and to supply this sensitive personal information to the government of the exporting country.

In other words, if you bought a shotgun made by an Italian manufacturer, the U.S. government would keep a record of your purchase and provide your information to the Italian government. This is gun registration on an international level, plain and simple.

Perhaps Obama should just tell the American people if they like their guns, they can keep their guns. That’s sure to inspire confidence.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


JackRussellTerrierist | December 29, 2014 at 4:17 pm

Sending thank you email to Sen. Inhofe.

Is an unratified treaty actually in effect?

    Paul in reply to MarkS. | December 29, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Why, enforcement is just a phone-call and pen-stroke away.

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Walker Evans in reply to MarkS. | December 29, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    It is in effect for the 61 countries (at last count) that have ratified it; it is not in effect in any other country including those who signed it but have not ratified, which includes the USA. However, since it has been signed it can be ratified by the Senate at any point in the future. There is no formal process in place to officially un-sign a treaty, leaving this as a time-bomb of sorts awaiting a Senate with a favorable disposition.

    And THAT is truly scary!

      ‘In effect’? Don’t make me laugh. The bulk of those countries will either violate it before the ink is dry on their signature or put forth zero effort into actually enforcing it.

      As with almost every UN treaty, this is nothing more than something for laughably corrupt countries and regimes to wag their fingers at the US for not perfectly 100% following to the letter.

      The UN needs to be dissolved. It is such a bad joke – and not even a FUNNY joke.

An international leftist registry would be less objectionable. 😉

    McCarthy tried that, and was declared a demon for ‘blacklisting’

    The progs do it in the name of safety for the children, and so forth.

    See the difference?

Dear UN & Slathering Lefties of Obamaland: Kindly Dial… 1-800-Bite-Me.

I wrote this back in 2012 but supremacy clause is going to be huge issue

Many scholars (and this is a disputed point) argue that treaties become the supreme law of the land. This is why progressives love the UN I think, they can get stuff implemented, or precedented, through the use of treaties.

    Sanddog in reply to dmacleo. | December 29, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    I thought Reid vs Covert already addressed the supremacy issue.

      I’ve always believed it to however the “one worlders” like to play games with this clause.
      I don’t have examples on hand right now but have read them saying our signing treaty counts and the clause applied.
      they tried to make the budapest memorandum work like this re: ukraine.
      so far we’ve been able to fight this stuff off however we, IMO, have a tenuous hold on this and need to take charge and sttrengthen it by saying treaties are secondary to amendments.
      leftists love to play games with sighing treaties even if not ratified.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Sanddog. | December 30, 2014 at 10:57 am

      Agreed – despite the reality that much of the left would love to have treaties preempt our Constitution, that is not going to happen any time soon. Statutory law? Sure. Ditto for regulatory law. But, the authority to enter into treaties is a Constitutional power grant, and, therefore cannot exist independent of our Constitution.

      That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t watch this closely. For example, right now there are significant limitations as to what happens to the information that is collected by federal firearms licensees when you buy firearms. But, that is statutory law, and this treaty could completely wipe those limitations out, giving the feds (as well as foreign governments) full access to that information.

Okay, Put it on the book shelf alongside the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The small people get smaller with each passing day; it’s difficult to imagine.

JackRussellTerrierist | December 29, 2014 at 5:48 pm

O/T, but speaking of guns, here is a story of stunning hypocrisy perhaps surpassed only by that of congressional gun-grabbers who are armed or have armed body guards:

Guns serve multiple purposes. Abortion has only one purpose. With the former, there are many choices and outcomes. While with the latter, there is only one choice and outcome: death, and collateral damage is not negiglence, but premeditated. Oh, never mind. I’m sure Obama et al have no ulterior motives, only good perceptions in mind.

Bite me.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | December 29, 2014 at 11:15 pm

I consider the rights provided by the 2nd Amendment secondary only to freedom itself. I consider infringement of the 2nd Amendment a deadline. Cross it and it is time to take up arms and defend this nation from those who would take our freedom.

    I agree. Of the First Ten Amendments, the 2nd is the most important. Imagine the right taken away from us to form armed Well Regulated Militias! I can do without religion, free speech, the right to assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances, the right of privacy (that’s long gone anyway), even to put up with soldiers quartered in my house– but not, and I repeat NOT to be refrained from serving at the beck and call of my State Militia – even if I have to provide my own arms when I show up for training!

    My wife’s great-great to the nth degree grandfather served in the 12th Regiment, New York State Militia, with pride! Here’s a stanza from a marching song they sang:

    “Our fathers brave, who fought and died
    For that dear flag, our joy and pride
    Did this grand sacred trust confide
    To us for to maintain:
    Then shall we see it in the dust,
    And let our swords in scabbards rust?
    No! by that Heav’n in which we trust,
    With life we’ll it sustain.”

    And so thank heav’n for the 2nd Amendment, which allowed the 12th the right to bear those swords in scabbards! Amen!

Hey, tolerating Squeaker John Boehner has consequences.

This treaty is worrisome, and should be watched closely. The goal appears to be an international firearms registry. Currently, the U.S. can’t really participate, because our federal firearms licensees mostly cannot be forced to share information about who bought what with the feds. This is statutory and regulatory law, which is the sort of thing that treaties can overrule. If the Senate ratifies the treaty, we can probably expect that every sale by merchants and the like will end up in a federal (and international) database. Maybe even private transfers.

The thing is though that even the Dem Senate wasn’t going to do something this blatant, when it comes to 2nd Amdt. rights. Pretty much every Senator from a flyover state, from Harry Reid on down, could expect to lose his/her next election.

Up next:
Free Speech Registry
Religion Registry

“In other words, if you bought a shotgun made by an Italian manufacturer, the U.S. government would keep a record of your purchase and provide your information to the Italian government. This is gun registration on an international level, plain and simple.”

Sounds like an incentive for foreign manufacturers to set up shops in the US (as many already have).