Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.
Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.
"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.
"As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty," the lawmakers wrote.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented.
The United Nations has organized a high-level signing ceremony at U.N. headquarters on Monday -- a sign of the treaty's global importance -- and several dozen countries are expected to sign, the first step to ratification.
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, said it expects many of the world's top arms exporters -- including Britain, Germany and France -- to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition noted that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that "history will be made" when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed "to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death."
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature -- and ratification -- will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/#ixzz2VBxC7h5K
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/#ixzz2VBx5vgHH
That would cover any weapon ever made.
This is scary stuff right here.
These three words that our founders wrote concerning the the right of the people to keep and bear arms trumps anything this current crop of a-holes that occupy our government for the moment can come up with.
They can sign anything they want but they may as well sign used toliet paper because they both contain the same thing....a lot of crap.
I can't wait for the UN to come knocking on our doors to tell us what weapons we can and can't have.
And yes, everyone who resists tyranny in this country will be labeled a terrorist. Might as well get used to that title right now because that is where things are headed unless we change course.
DO SOMETHING !!!!!!!!
Somewhere there is going to be a stack of letters. And we need to have more in the opposition pile.
Fixed it for you,Sleepy.
Here is your warning Sleepy: NvaGvUps comments were germane to the subject matter. Yours were argumentative.
You are at strike two already.
You have been warned.
. . . . but . . . ,
I am truly interested in your thoughts on the U. N. Gun Ban Treaty.
However, start your own Sleepy thread. This one is about Kerry, Obummer, and the U. N. Gun Ban Treaty.
Strike two to each of you. You have been warned.
I don't see how a politician can decree that an airport be dug up in the middle of the night, toll bridges and parking meters can be sold off, white guys with outfit connections get city minority contracts, sealed court records get unsealed for candidates, gangbangers get used as campaign workers and dead people vote, a lot. Yet that and lots more has and will happen, hammer.
Don't think that anything is beyond democrats with links to Chicago. 2014 elections are not a lock by a long shot. Look at who's voting, look at who's suppressing opposition votes, look at who's counting the votes.
Me no count good.
As to the thread itself...Kerry is a bootlicker. He has always been a freeloading mooch and obama gave him a bone with the State Department assignment. Kerry has never stood on his own and to expect him to do anything other than what Valerie Jarrett wants is laughable.
I agree 100%. Well stated.
- So, using that rationale, the UN should disband and the POTUS (or his AG, in the least) should be doing serious jail time.
Also, since the Air Force veterans at work have successfully taught this Marine to read and write, I will ask them if they will place me in time out, and teach me some cyphering too.
Back to the Treaty; I am still aghast that ANY American would sign ANY treaty that gives U.N. Control over anthing in this country. I just do not understand that kind of thinking.
- tony, The folks in central planning have been thinking globally in more terms than firing missiles at Arabs. It is, apparently, intellectually and morally progressive to subjugate one's neighbors to a remote bureaucracy who would regard Virginians in the same capacity as Afghanis.
TOS is right. These folks see themselves as "global citizens" first and foremost.
1. The immigration bill is not expected to pass the Senate even by the Dems. Still, it becomes an anti-Republican message that "immigration reform" was blocked by the obstinate racists R's and becomes another meme in an attempt to regain the House.
2. When something eventually passes (and you can be sure it will), an immigration legislation will enable the Dems to be in a position that the Republicans will never win another election because the majority of those new voters will be beholding to the progressive controlled government tit.
3. That UN resolution signed under the Obama administration will then be ratified and become law...gutting the 2A as it cedes more US sovereignty to the UN.
Why we allow our country to continue to be part of an organization that has failed in its mission and demonstrates its insanities when it comes to NK, Iran and AGW is a sign that we will allow the progs to make our Constitutional rights just words.
The left will continue to push those that believe in our Constitution and its philosophy of maximum individual liberty into a corner. A second revolution will be forced upon this country if freedom is to survive.
"WHAT WILL AN ARMS TRADE TREATY NOT DO?
According to the U.N. Office of Disarmament, it will not do any of the following: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm states' legitimate right to self-defense; undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.
The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun rights lobby group, is strongly opposed to the arms trade treaty. The group has vowed to fight the convention's ratification by the U.S. Senate if Washington backs it at the United Nations.
The NRA says the treaty would undermine gun ownership rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The American Bar Association, an attorneys' lobbying group, last month disputed the NRA position, saying in a paper that "ratification of the treaty would not infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
Trusting the U. N. promises of leaving the 2nd Amendment alone is just like believing that Obummercare would decrease the costs of insurance premiums, eh?
That pretty well covers everything that I've got.
WHO WANTS SUCH A TREATY?
Human rights groups, arms control advocates want a strong treaty that imposes tough new standards on the largely unregulated arms trade.
Doesn't that sound a lot like the whine the gun control advocates use here in the states?
Lets just ignore history, forget past experience, never mind the most illegal, law breaking, constitution shredding administration EVER has "reversed course" and now supports this treaty.
Yeah, right, they're not after our guns.
A bunch of lying, coniving lawyers doing more lying and coniving. I trust them about as far as I can throw an anvil upwind in a hurricane...with my bad arm!
This is Sen. Warner's response ( from his office I am sure ).
Is it just me, or did anyone else see that there is no mention of the U. N. Treaty?
Dear Mr. Oliver,
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on legislative efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States.
On December 14, 2012, 20 innocent children and six adults lost their lives in one of the worst, most tragic shootings to ever occur in the United States. As a parent of three daughters, this was the ultimate nightmare. Like the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings, this tragedy unfolded in what was once regarded as a safe haven free o f crime and violence: a school.
I own firearms and am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. However, I also recognize that, like with many of our constitutional rights, our Second Amendment rights are not without limits. It is unfortunate that a tragedy of this magnitude is what is needed to prompt action, but we need to take meaningful steps that will help us best avoid these kinds of mass shootings in the future. The status quo is not acceptable.
During the Senate's recent consideration of the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649), I was very disappointed that we could not reach the necessary 60 votes for passage of a reasonable, bipartisan amendment to strengthen background checks. This compromise legislation put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey would have closed the gun show loophole and prohibited the commercial sale of guns to those who are seriously mentally ill or have a criminal record while also upholding Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, its failure, which occurred one day after the sixth anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy, jeopardizes passage of the underlying gun safety bill, which includes ou r bipartisan CAMPUS Safety Act.
There was also significant debate over proposals to ban certain types of weapons and magazines. I voted against these bans because, after talking to numerous experts, I believe the most effective thing we can do to reduce gun-related violence and keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited by law from possessing them is to pass a strong background check law.
Moving forward, I believe that the Senate should continue to work to pass effective measures that will help to keep our children and communities safe. These include broadening background checks for gun purchases, making improvements to our mental health system so we can provide help to those with dangerous mental illnesses before it is too late, as well as measures to prevent gun trafficking, ensure all appropriate records are submitted into the background check database, and improve school and campus safety.
Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov .
Sincerely, MARK R. WARNER United States Senator
Enough said ...
Well, another monkey just fell off the ladder trying to reach the banana. I think I'll just shake my head and walk away. He's proved time and time again he'll never learn!
If you're wondering, check the phsyc 101 thread....