U.S. Rights: As the world body
meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international
arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that
may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.
Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial
announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry
announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a
final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this
week.
Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a
handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its
stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of
terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international
level.
Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress
last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose
significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and
economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small
Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and
that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . ..
minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."
Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"
"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S.
law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution,
including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to
reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban
weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality,
thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting
rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire
U.S. were a "gun-free zone."
As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part
of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new
firearms market in the U.S.
"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate
measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what
qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left
completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.
The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry
(initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new
requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of
firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the
final end user.. ."
Restrictions on imports might be extended to ammunition as well.
Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan
resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal
"places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of
equality" and represents a threat to U.S. national security.
Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.
Interestingly, just as the world's worst human rights violators have
sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms
supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected to a top
position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held
in New York last July.
The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second
Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our
founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark
against tyrannical government.
The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and
gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is
hardly a surprise.
Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won't infringe on
our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't reassure us.