United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Goes Into Effect Christmas Eve, Gun Advocates In U.S. Worried

Over the years, many people — mostly Republicans, Tea Party activists, and Libertarians — have shown their disdain for the attack on the Second Amendment. The Inquisitr kept up on the latest news pertaining to events related to this, such as a Georgia father filing a lawsuit because he wasn’t allowed to take a gun to a school. There are many other lawsuits of the same nature, but most of them are pairing the Second Amendment against something else. In Minnesota, it’s against the First Amendment, while in Texas, it’s against bare breasts.

Now there is news that the Second Amendment may now be under attack from the United Nations (UN). From what the UN states, their gun arms trade treaty will go into effect on Christmas Eve, which is causing many pro-firearm, gun rights advocate, Second Amendment supporters to be worried.

According to the official site of the United Nations, the Arms Trade Treaty that is set to go on Christmas Eve will make both import and export parties to establish control for combat vehicles, aircraft, and small arms and light weapons. The treaty also reads that each state party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of the treaty. The state party is also encouraged to record the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfer of conventional arms, conventional arms actually transferred, detail of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and transshipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.

The Blaze broke down what this all means for Americans, preferably for Second Amendment supporters, through spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA), Catherine Mortensen.

“The UN Arms Trade Treaty is an attempt by other countries – including some despotic regimes – to try and infringe on our constitutional rights.”

It should be noted that the treaty was not ratified by the Senate. However, the real fear is the fact that President Barack Obama, or an anti-gun president, may utilize the treaty as a means to enact gun control. Catherine Mortensen explained this.

“We are worried about an end-run around Congress. Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use ATT and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control policies through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.

“Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect. That’s outrageous.”

Investor’s Business Daily also reported on the UN’s treaty, in which they warned that Barack Obama could use it as a basis for an executive action or order.

“All treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and that’s not about to happen in the case of the unratified Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), particularly after the 2014 election that gave the GOP Senate control. The same, of course, could have been said about the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change deals that mandate that governments tie their economies in knots to meet arbitrary emission goals to save the planet. The Senate has not and won’t ratify any of those either. Yet a president who pays no attention to Congress or the Constitution has through Environmental Protection Agency regulations sought to impose Kyoto and cap-and-trade through regulation and fiat.”

This is very possible because Barack Obama has bypassed Congress before. Recently, Obama bypassed Congress with his executive order on immigration, which he passed last month.

From what you have read here about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and how it may effect the Second Amendment, what are your views about it? Do you think this is the world’s way of trying to impede on the United States’ Second Amendment? Do you think Barack Obama will use this treaty as a means to enforce gun control in the United States?

Comments