As Barack Obama prepares to sign the United Nation’s Small Arms Treaty when Congress concludes its summer session, some have wondered whether or not it gives authority to use foreign troops on US soil to enforce the treaty.
If you wish to understand just what is entailed in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), you need look no further than Article 15 of the treaty (Click here for a downloadable PDF or click here for the online version). Article 15 reads:
In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.
It provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and it mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. Notice this includes legal, financial, technical, as well as “material” assistance to enforce the treaty.
Should the US sign onto the treaty and it be ratified, it would make us responsible for helping in the implementation in states that request such assistance. It’s not like we don’t have enough going on without having to deal with this nonsense.
Dave Workman of the Examiner wrote back in July 2012, “Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law.”
Workman then pointed out, “However, Versnel-Gottlieb notes that the proposed treaty is still getting support from the United Kingdom and the French delegation let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned “weapons.” Gun rights activists will quickly note that this has not worked too well for the British.”
We are already aware of the United Nations sordid history of attempting general and complete disarmament, including individual arms that are legally owned.
The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”
The treaty specifically recognizes only “lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.”
We already know that American troops were used to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina. You can see the video evidence here and here. At least Staff Sergeant Joshua May refused to confiscate guns from people during Hurricane Katrina.
However, Article 15 of the ATT makes one wonder whether or not foreign troops would be sent in to confiscate law abiding American citizens’ weapons.
First thing is first though. Barack Obama must sign the treaty and then it must be ratified, which a Senate resolution has already been passed stating that will not happen, thanks in part to the work of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Also, 130 members of Congress recently sent a letter to both Obama and Kerry opposing the treaty. More than that, we must find a way to ultimately kill this treaty even if it is signed by Obama. Otherwise it lingers in the background waiting for an opportune time to be ratified by a completely radical leftist Senate.
With that said, I’m sure if Congress wouldn’t put an end to such a thing, that many Americans would be more than willing to welcome foreign troops, under the UN banner, in a hailstorm of bullets of various calibers.