Oh that it was a Snopes myth....I'm seeing more articles cropping up on the subject and related matters. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...uld-Sign-Anti-Gun-Arms-Trade-Treaty-by-August
So apparently this week the Obama administration, Russia, France, China, and Britian are building the treaty behind closed doors. Not looking good when you look at the track record for those building this thing. They are supposed to be done with it next week on Friday (7/27). I've tried to read and figure out when/where the general public might be able to get our hands on this thing, if anyone knows how I can get ahold of it to read myself I'd love to know. I clearly understand that if (when) the US signs, the Senate would need to vote with 2/3 in favor to do anything about this on our turf. Not likely to happen today, but my concern is that in the future if the liberal side of the Senate grows large enough they might get the votes they need to do this. The foundation will be in place for that to occur if/when the US signs this treaty. I doubt they will completely remove gun ownership rights and eliminate the 2nd ammendment, but I do have concern they will have more regulations that will require tax $$$ to enforce like microstamping or registry processes, restrictions on private transfers, or even the potential to ban certain types of weapons like handguns and semi auto long guns. I know that Canada recently removed their long arms registry program because it cost them almost 3 billion over a 14 year period. They found that around 1% of the time a gun used in a homicide was actually registered to the person charged, and it cost them 3 billion to figure this statistic out. Proportionally in the US when you look at the increased number of guns, it would cost us about 67 billion to do the same thing. I'm really trying to look at this from an objective point of view, but can't see how this is good at all for gun owners in any way, and can't see any measurable benefit for us if put in place. Anyone else have thoughts or data to share?
This is the most astute assessment I've seen, D i c k Morris: As we face the prospect that Hillary Clinton will sign the Arms Trade Treaty, establishing first-ever UN gun controls, those of us who believe in the Second Amendment need to gear up for a tough battle this fall. But there is a good prospect of victory. We have to realize that once the ink is dry on Hillary's signature, there are only two ways to beat the Treaty and its threat of UN imposed gun control - take back the Senate or beat Obama. The fact that the NRA has succeeded in getting fifty-eight Senators to sign on opposing the Treaty is irrelevant. If Harry Reid won't bring it up on the floor, it won't get a vote. And, in the absence of Senate disapproval or a renunciation by the president, the United States is bound by the Treaty under the provisions of the Vienna Convention which we have both signed and ratified. Nor will the Second Amendment offer us any protection. The Supremacy Clause in our own Constitution provides that treaties are the "law of the land" akin to a constitutional provision. The answer is to beat Obama and give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. Either will suffice to kill the Treaty. A Republican majority leader would certainly bring the Treaty up for a vote and it would certainly be defeated, ending its power over the U.S. and a President Romney will doubtless renounce the Treaty on taking office. Voting for anti-gun control Democratic candidates for Senate won't work. Their leader would refuse to bring the Treaty up for a vote, regardless of how his members felt. We know that Obama is frightened to death of the gun issue. While he said, famously, that bitter people "cling to their religion and their guns," in the 2008 election, he hasn't touched the issue since. In his avalanche of liberal proposals concerning spending, taxes, health care, labor relations, the environment, and energy, he has proposed no added gun controls. So we need to realize that this Treaty is a declaration of war against the Second Amendment and we need to step up and battle. We have got to make gun control the issue that tips swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado into the Republican column on Election Day. Now there is no way to save our right to bear arms other than to win the election.
Good additional insights. One other note, the 'treaty' is also seeking limits on ammo. What exactly that means or the limits, I do not know. One other question, I looked for, but haven't found the UN definition of 'small arms and light weapons'. Can anybody point me to such a UN specific definition?
Drop your congressmen a note this weekend: http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.h...ge_html_page_22995_content_76782662_pageNum_1
