The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.
There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.
After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and 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.
Former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations
Quoted by J.D. Longstreet January 15, 2009 in The UN To Take US Guns?
[I don’t know if this is a real threat or not. My initial inclination is that the current Senate would refuse to ratify it. But I just don’t know for certain.
Long term I do fear this sort of approach to gun control because it requires fewer people to agree to it. Just the President and 2/3s of the Senate. But how would that work if the treaty said “You must register and track all guns” but the House of Representatives refused to pass a law requiring that? How could a treaty be enforced against individual citizens without U.S. legal code defining the offenses and the punishments?
Would the U.N. send in troops to enforce it? If so I know some people who refer to this sort of situation as having unlimited license to hunt “blue helmeted elk”.–Joe]
I suspect that some people would also include the politicians who brought the blue-helmeted elk into the country on their licenses.
Yes, emdfl; as unlikely as the scenario may be it is not impossible. If it came to pass it would very likely become an “open season” situation nationwide. When talking about lines in the sand, there is often a lot of dissagreement, but when this scenario comes up there seems to be a strong consensus. Lets hope we never have to see it tested.
I’ve never tasted blue helmeted elk. But I do enjoy hunting armed men. The adrenalin rush is . . . exhilarating.
It would take a great deal more than the president and 2/3 of the senate to take away the American’s people’s firearms. Prohibition didn’t work. Such a proposal would be seen and dealt with for what it is.
I’m inclined to think of them as a non-native nuisance species. In Texas, those are considered “varmint animals”, with no closed season, and may be taken at any time by any means, including trapping.
The current “representatives” passes a health care bill that is widely unpopular and unconstitutional. What is to stop them from doing the same with gun control?
When I queried my Senator (Webb) about this, he indicated support for it. The “Pro-gun” democrats (if such an animal actually exists) really do believe that this will not have any domestic implications for private gun ownership, ammunition reloading, or private gun transactions. When looked at through their Pollyanna lenses of being good world citizens, this treaty makes perfect sense. However, if we look at it through the “worst enemy” lens of rational legislation, we can foresee many instances of this law being the basis for abuse of our Second Amendment rights. It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that this treaty is targeted at the American gun owner. And, that removing this last bastion of Free Men is the goal of the people for whom world government is an ultimate prescription to solving the world’s problems.
CIFTA should be on everybody’s radar scope who values their freedom. I do not believe that it is alarmist to call out the Senate on this one, no matter how early it is in the game. My senators have both heard from me. I hope that everyone who reads your blog will do likewise and let their own senators know that this treaty shall not be ratified, as it is anathema to Liberty.
How they will enforce it without any American legislation to legalize it is the same way they do much of what they do. Isolate the few, kill them and televise it.
Should such come to pass, there needs to be enough of us as to be undefeatable in the gun fight.