View Single Post
Old August 26, 2011, 07:36 AM   #57
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,847
3. If there is a treaty it will have the following caveat:

UN General Assembly Resolution A/C.1/64/L.38/Rev.1, Oct. 28: …Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory…
While I generally agree that the UN Treaty doesn't represent a credible threat at this time (in part because of the work of the NRA), I wouldn't rely too much on the above resolution. It merely indicates where the U.S. wanted to go with the treaty when John Bolton was still ambassador. The new U.S. ambassador is the former Mayor of Seattle who attempted to implement gun bans even when the state of Washington's preemption law prohibited it - he fought it all the way to litigation even. And beyond that, this is only the U.S. view and may not prevail in any case.

So when the treaty is actually drafted, I would expect this provision to be eliminated entirely or rendered toothless. The good news is that as long as the Senators mentioned earlier hold true; we could suffer massive losses in 2012 and still be able to defeat ratification of a treaty until at least 2014.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Page generated in 0.03504 seconds with 7 queries