Q: Does the Obama administration intend to “force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens” through a United Nations treaty?
A: No. The administration plans to negotiate a treaty to regulate the international export and import of weapons. It says that it won’t support any treaty that regulates the domestic transfer or ownership of weapons, or that infringes on the Second Amendment.
FULL QUESTION
Any truth to this?
If This Passes, There Will Be A Civil War
The Full Article Here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).
DON’T KEEP THIS – SEND IT OUT TO YOUR LIST
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/UN-Arms-Treaty.htm
FULL ANSWER
A chain email that we debunked back in 2009 is making the rounds again. But nothing has changed in more than two years that would make the message any more true.
Its author claims that President Barack Obama “intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” That’s a reference to a potential United Nations treaty to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons.
“On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States,” the author of the chain email writes, referring to the Obama administration’s announcement in October 2009 that it would support a process that could lead to a treaty. “By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.”
First, we should note that Obama has said that the Second Amendment “does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses.” But if Obama actually wanted to “ban all firearms in the United States,” the strategy outlined in this email would be a curious way of trying to accomplish that goal.
For starters, Obama wouldn’t be able to “bypass” Congress, as the author of this email claims. All international treaties that the U.S. agrees to require the approval of two-thirds of the senators present before the treaties can be ratified. Those would surely be tough votes to get if the treaty banned all firearms. Last year, in fact, 13 Democratic senators, led by Jon Tester of Montana, wrote a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that they wouldn’t support a treaty unless they were guaranteed that it wouldn’t “in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sales of firearms or ammunition” in the U.S. That’s in addition to 45 Republican senators, led by Jerry Moran of Kansas, who also wrote a letter saying that “any treaty resulting from the Arms Trade Treaty process that seeks in any way to regulate the domestic manufacture, assembly, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, and related items would be completely unacceptable to us.”
And even in the unlikely event that a treaty banning firearms managed to get through the Senate, it would almost certainly be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled just four years ago that the District of Columbia’s own ban on handguns violated residents’ Second Amendment rights.
Plus, there is still no treaty to speak of. Countries are scheduled to discuss the global export and import of conventional weapons at an Arms Trade Treaty Conference in July. But all nations participating in the negotiations must agree before any final document can be produced. And the State Department has said that it won’t support a treaty that would ban firearms in the country.
Back in April, when discussing the upcoming conference, Thomas Countryman, assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferations, said that the U.S. wouldn’t support a treaty that covers the domestic transfer of weapons, or goes against the Second Amendment:
Countryman, April 16: Second, let me be clear once more on the question of domestic transfers. The Treaty must not touch on domestic transfers or ownership. The United States has received widespread international support for this oft-repeated position that only international transfers would come within the purview of this Treaty. We will not support outcomes that would in any way infringe on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have received, in fact, letters from United States Senators opposing any Treaty restricting the Second Amendment. This has been the position of the Executive Branch since 2009, and it remains our position today. We will not support or agree to any Treaty that would do so. We believe that the international community can draft a Treaty on international arms transfers that would both increase international security and still protect sovereign rights of nations. That is the Treaty that the United States will pursue in July and for which we expect there will be widespread support.
We’ll have to wait and see if the upcoming discussion leads to a proposed treaty, and, if so, what it actually would do. But it’s wrong to claim, as this email does, that the administration “intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties.” The administration has stated its intent to do the exact opposite.
Update, July 30: The Arms Trade Treaty Conference concluded on July 27 without an agreement from all 193 UN member nations. The Associated Press reported that the United States, China and Russia all said that they needed additional time to consider the treaty’s draft text.
In a statement released on July 27, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said: “The United States supports the outcome today at the Arms Trade Treaty Conference. While the Conference ran out of time to reach consensus on a text, it will report its results and the draft text considered back to the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The United States supports a second round of negotiations, conducted on the basis of consensus, on the Treaty next year; we do not support a vote in the UNGA on the current text. The illicit trafficking of conventional arms is an important national security concern for the United States. While we sought to conclude this month’s negotiations with a Treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue. The current text reflects considerable positive progress, but it needs further review and refinement.”
Update, Oct. 16, 2013: Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty on behalf of President Obama and the United States on Sept. 25. In a statement, he said the treaty is “about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors,” and “reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes.” He added that the treaty “recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”
The treaty had previously been approved by a U.N. General Assembly vote in April. That was after all 193 U.N. member nations failed to agree on the treaty text in conference. Of the nations participating in the General Assembly vote, 154 voted in favor (the U.S. included), three voted against (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria), and 23 abstained.
Back in March, the Senate voted 53 to 46 in favor of Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe’s amendment to prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty. But that vote was purely symbolic and not binding. Now that Kerry has signed the treaty, the Senate must vote again to approve a resolution of ratification before the U.S. can be bound by the treaty’s terms.
Sources
Novak, Viveca. “International Gun Ban Treaty?” FactCheck.org. 5 Dec 2009.
U.S. Department of State. “U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty.” Press statement. 14 Oct 2009.
White House. “Remarks by President Obama and President Calderón of Mexico at Joint Press Conference.” Press release. 3 Mar 2011.
United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs. UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty 2-27 July 2012, New York. Accessed 12 Jun 2011.
Office of Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. “Tester leads Senate in warning Obama: Arms treaty must not infringe on gun rights.” Press release. 26 Jul 2011.
Tester, Jon, et al. Letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. 26 Jul 2011.
Moran, Jerry, et al. Letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. 22 Jul 2011.
Bedard, Paul. “Opposition Mounts To U.N. Gun Control Treaty.” U.S. News & World Report. 26 Jul 2011.
Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008). 26 Jun 2008.
United Nations General Assembly. Provisional rules of procedure of the Conference. 7 Mar 2012.
Countryman, Thomas. “Positions for the United States in the Upcoming Arms Trade Treaty Conference.” Remarks. 16 Apr 2012.