Amendment 139: Opposing the UN ATT

[Spats McGee]

IMO, it invites the UN to meddle in domestic affairs. There is some language that causes me serious concerns:

Article 2
Scope
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons

Article 5
General Implementation . . . .
3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

4. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms. No national definition of any of the categories covered in Article 2 (1) shall cover less than the descriptions used in the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.

Article 8
Import
1. Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national export assessment under Article 7.
2. Each importing State Party shall take measures that will allow it to regulate, where
necessary, imports under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article 2(1). Such measures may include national control lists or import systems.

Article 11
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and
regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are
transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),
importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

Source: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/do...onference).pdf

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Russia, China, and India have all abstained from voting, as have several Central American states. There are some real concerns with the language of the treaty.

Somewhat irreverently, I commented that the reason the above nations abstained from voting was that they made the most money selling to the Syrians, North Koreans, and Libyans.

I doubt Glock will be affected since they go from Austria, to Smyra, to distributors. Seems like end user stuff is all squared away there.

I agree with Tom, that the treaty seems mainly to be designed to prevent a guy like Colonel North in trading cocain for arms to trade for hostages.

Still not a fan though.

UN sponsored disarmament hasn't done a darn thing to stop genocide in Africa, doubt this helps either.

[I'vebeenduped]

What are the odds of the ATT being forced upon us? I don't mean to sound like my tinfoil hat is on too tightly, honestly. For instance, our soldiers are automatically members of the UN military. Just remember Michael New from a few years back; http://www.mikenew.com/meet.html
Since our service members are automatically a part of the UN, could they and their homes be subjected to this? I understand that a soldier is under the UCMJ and not strictly the constitution. Still, is there some caveat that could be used to circumvent the constitution for citizens in regard to the ATT? Again, I don't ask this to sound like a conspiracy theorist, these are just honest questions, so keep the lambasting to a minimum.

[Erno86]

"Even some supporters conceded that the highly complicated negotiations forced compromises that left significant loopholes. The treaty focuses on sales, for example, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including as gifts, loans, leases and aid."

"The treaty's ratification prospects in the Senate appear bleak, at least in the short term, in part because of opposition by the gun lobby. More than 50 senators signaled months ago that they would oppose the treaty --- more than enough to defeat it, since 67 senators must ratify it."

Quote: The New York Times INTERNATIONAL Wednesday, April 3, 2013

[rebs]

Both of my crap senators here in new york voted nae. They don't have a clue.
Schumer is one of the biggest anti gun senators there is and he has taken Gillibrand right along with him. They both need to be voted out.

[Scouse]

Just had a thread shut down (completely fairly, since this thread contains discussion of the pros/cons of ATT) and wanted to ask what the main issues are that cause such vociferous opposition - anyone shed any light?

I get the point that the language is rather vague for this sort of treaty, some of the stuff Spats Mcgee posted above is pretty wooly language. Personally, I don't see how the language is dangerously vague in terms of domestic rights, though (e.g. given that the purpose of the treaty is international commerce, it seems obvious that the vague language around article 5.3 is about effective import/export control, rather than, say, a national registry.)

As I understand it, the whole purpose of the ATT is international arms commerce between states, not civilian populations. So, help me understand, what are the main points of contention here?

[Spats McGee]

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.

You and I are the "end users," Scouse.

[Scouse]

So it is based on the idea that this might force the USA to impose registration/record keeping?

Ok, I get that - though I would have thought that the caveats about not imposing on domestic laws and the woolyness of the language itself ("as appropriate" etc) would mean that this would only become a 2A issue if US politicians deliberately went out of their way to ensure it was - which if they are going to do, they are going to do regardless of any UN treary. Thats the way it strikes me, anyway.

I do see how the language in the treaty is causing problems though, it must have been obvious that "records on end users" would get people stressed out.

[Spats McGee]

Yeah, I may sound a little tinfoilhattish on this, and that's OK. With that said, however, my recollection is that not only would the US be encouraged (or required) to compile a list of "end users" for its "national control system," but it might also be encouraged to share that list with exporting countries in the spirit of "international cooperation." (I may be wrong on that part, though.) I just don't see any reason for the US gov't to send my name to the UN, or Brazil, or Croatia, or any other place from which one of my guns might hail. Easiest solution: don't ratify the treaty.

[SPEMack618]

Oh, I agree one hundred percent Spats, heck I got my k-pot lined with tin-foil if the Senate ever ratifies the treaty, but I don't see the Senate ratifying said treaty.

[Scouse]

Given the US domestic debate, I totally see how that is an issue.

In the end though, the US is never going to do anything just because the UN says so, countries duck out of bits of treaties all the time. Personally, I can't see the US government sending lists of its citizens to anyone.

Anyway, thanks for distilling the objections down for me there.

[TX Hunter]

What gets me is that this treaty dosent seem to be getting much publicity, I have not seen it on the news or heard It mentioned on the radio. The Asault Weapons Ban is being broadcast loud and clear. I smell a Rat !

[thallub]

In Reid Vs. Covert SCOTUS ruled no treaty over-rules the US Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html

[Spats McGee]

While I agree that, at least in theory, no treaty can override the Constitution, it's the "in theory" part that worries me. Here's what I mean: Should SCOTUS rule that full registration and may-issue permitting by the federal gov't is not in violation of the 2A, then the treaty could (at least arguably) require date on the "end users" to be compiled and transmitted to exporting countries. Again, easy solution=don't ratify the treaty.

[thallub]

See page 2 of the treaty:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by thallub

See page 2 of the treaty:

(emphasis supplied by Spats)
Yes, and note that neither self-defense nor defense from tyranny appears anywhere in that clause.

When I last taught ConLaw, the textbook that I used had the "model constitution" that the UN (allegedly) supplies to emerging nations to use as a model. There is no RKBA in it.

[SPEMack618]

The UN has a pretty bad track record in regards to the RKBA in developing nations.

They seem to think that it would be morally reprehensible for oppressed groups to fight back with the same cast off AKMs thier oppressors seem to favor.

Spats, I had to use the model UN constitution in both International Relations(for a hypothetical independent Palestine) and as a contrasting document in Constitutional History.

That document served to elevate my fear of the robin egg's blue helmet to nearly irrational levels.

It makes one thankful for the Founders and our Constituion, in addition to providing a gut check to that oath I took at 17.

[poline]

((I didn't really need to look, but both my worthless senators voted "Nay.")
Same with my two!
I remember the USA ARMY LAD that refused to serve the UN...their hat
and patch........above our CONTITUTION. He was and is my hero.
The army tired to keep it quiet and just give him an article 15, but he made
it a bigger issue.
I never have thought it was a good Idea for a country to give up it's
SOVEREIGNTY. We don't like our own govt telling us what to do, why would
we want the UN to tell us?

[KyJim]

In Reid Vs. Covert SCOTUS ruled no treaty over-rules the US Constitution.

Thallub, this is always your mantra on the treaty. There is an awful lot of room for laws to be passed in support of the treaty (or by executive order) without violating the Constitution. Spats McGee mentioned the treaty might require registration. As much as I am opposed to registration, I cannot, as a lawyer, say that the courts would find a registration system unconstitutional. In fact, I think the federal courts would likely find it constitutional.

[thallub]

There is an awful lot of room for laws to be passed in support of the treaty (or by executive order) without violating the Constitution.

Yep, theres that thing about executive orders again. Let me get out my tinfoil hat with lead liner and ultrasonic hearing protection.

[btmj]

Scouse wrote:

In the end though, the US is never going to do anything just because the UN says so, countries duck out of bits of treaties all the time. Personally, I can't see the US government sending lists of its citizens to anyone.

The editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal was always opposed to the Kyoto protocols (and associated treaty) on carbon emissions. One of their key objections is that other nations routinely violate treaty agreements and given the extreme sacrifice demanded by Kyoto, international compliance seemed highly unlikely. The US, on the other hand, views treaties as Law, and if ratified by the Senate, Kyoto would have carried the force of law in the US. Environmental activists in the US would have certainly sued to ensure US compliance with the treaty. Fortunately, the US never signed on to Kyoto.

Fast forward to the present day, and very few nations who signed Kyoto have actually lived up to the requirements. Kyoto is basically viewed as "dead". But had the US signed, you can bet your bottom dollar that federal court orders would have enforced our compliance.

I don't see why the situation is any different with ATT. Other nations may pay lip service to the treaty, but the US is a nation of laws with an independent judiciary... If the US signs it, we will comply with this misguided treaty, by hook or by crook....

[Mausermolt]

so i read today that the UN arms trade treaty passed. also i read something a while ago that said the USA was not going to take part in the treaty because it was a violation of the 2nd. but now all of a sudden the Obama administration flip flopped on the position and went ahead and signed on. i dont know much about the treaty or what the Obama administration has done, so if someone could enlighten me so i dont have to go sifting through pages and pages of articles that are politically swayed against our god given right, i would appreciate it.
here is the article i read just so you can see where my question is coming from:

http://www.gunnews.com/u-s-governmen...easily-passes/

[Spats McGee]

Mausermolt, I don't have any solid sources that I can cite right now. I've gotta run in just a couple of minutes. That said, your post accurately reflects my understanding of the situation:

Originally Posted by Mausermolt

. . . . the UN arms trade treaty passed. also i read something a while ago that said the USA was not going to take part in the treaty because it was a violation of the 2nd. but now all of a sudden the Obama administration flip flopped on the position . . . . .

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Russia, China, and India have all abstained from voting, as have several Central American states. There are some real concerns with the language of the treaty.

Nice tidbit. Doesn't that sound like the easy road for them?

Abstinence from being a partaker in a vote leaves them open to excuses as to why they would not abide in the future, just as a few of the aforementioned have done in the past (and likely to do so again)?

[csmsss]

No tinfoil hat required for this one - just a supposition of a lawless executive branch. If the White House and DoJ were to adopt the position that they are unconcerned about constitutional niceties with respect to the imposition of laws supporting a treaty, they would have a considerable period of time in which to implement the provisions of the treaty before it could make its way to the Supreme Court. It could, also, take its time about modifying its behavior even after an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling was issued. All it takes is an executive branch with the will to ignore the Supreme Court. I don't doubt the capacity of the current administration to do just that.