“Why”? – Secretary John Kerry Signs The United States Up To U.N. Small Arms Treaty….

Secretary Kerry, at the request, advice and consent of President Obama, has signed the United States up for the U.N arms treaty.

Defying warnings from the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed the United Nations Small Arms Trade Treaty Sept. 25 at the UN headquarters in New York City  (link)

John Kerry signs UN arms treaty

One of the central components of the Treaty is to require domestic regulation of “small arms and light weapons.”  The treaty’s Article 5 requires nations to “establish and maintain a national control system,” including a “national control list.”

Much can be espoused in all directions about the “intents” of the treaty itself, however one key question I have yet to see any media outlet ask the administration is a simple one:

“why is this needed”?

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Conspiracy ?, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, European Union, media bias, Military, Notorious Liars, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, United Nations. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to “Why”? – Secretary John Kerry Signs The United States Up To U.N. Small Arms Treaty….

  1. Spar Harmon says:

    Sun Dance…I don’t think they are taking questions…. They don’t even seem to be taking answers… or listening to anybody I know….
    It seems once my eyes got opened I find signs of anti-constitutional activity everywhere. That is, anti-American culture is everywhere: the rising of black racism into naked view; the displacement of cultural norm by perverted versions of those norms which are pervaded with incipient sociopathic, nihilistic, sadistic, narcissistic, manic, new social norms, never overtly stated….just as Obama never overtly states his real viewpoint or goals—scorched earth, he seems intent on leaving behind…
    Yet when I get out and talk to people, they are uniformly expressing either fearful or angry Awareness of at least some of what’s happening…

    Like

    • canadacan says:

      Lurch Can sign anything he wants, It’s Obama’s petulant way of trying to get even because gun control didn’t go the way he wanted
      The United Nations is a waste of time and a paper tiger.

      Like

      • partyzant says:

        I do not think the U.N. really is able to do much of anything, except spread corruption, disease and cower under “diplomatic” immunity for egregious crimes.
        I have seen it expressed elsewhere that the “U.N. Blue” makes for an easily discernable reference point. I would pay money to see them try to impose anything south of the Mason-Dixon (well, south of Maryland). They don’t have enough armies by far to meet the troop to task that this new treaty will require for full implementation
        Sad thing is, those treaties have the effect of U.S. Law now. This whole dirty episode has been done under color of law.

        Like

  2. lovemygirl says:

    This Administration will do everything and anything it can to back door things. Using the EPA to tax carbon through regulation and fines. Signing this treaty to enact gun legislation. I can’t imagine what is going to happen with health care. Even the schools are being led to national standards and regulations. Our Republic will be gone unless people stand up.

    Like

  3. raskog says:

    To signify that the United States Constitution and its people is subordinate to the largely European based United Nations Treaty. Hog wash.

    Like

    • maryfrommarin says:

      Being dragged into the “post-national” world.

      Like

    • canadacan says:

      A degenerate treaty signed by degenerate people designed by degenerate countries.
      Degenerates fear an armed populace.
      Tough tamales . Since when do has been European countries dictate what’s going on here ,you gotta be kidding me.
      Another ineffectual measure attempted by effete pseudo intellectuals.

      Like

      • canadacan says:

        I know its a stretch but I’m thinking of the Monroe Doctrine talking about any attempt to insinuate European ideas and political practices into this hemisphere
        Just ain’t cool.

        Like

      • partyzant says:

        Freud said that fear of weapons is a sign of immaturity and psyche maldevelopment.

        Like

        • Menagerie says:

          Damn. Sometimes he was rational. :wink:

          Like

        • czarowniczy says:

          And he also said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A fear of a weapon whose muzzle is pressed ever so slightly into your forehead is a healthy and natural reminder of not only Darwin and Mao but current Administration policies. These guys are not so bold as previous Administrations in loosing the FBI on example Americans and burning their houses down – with said exemplars inside – but they’re not far from doing it if the sense a turning in the numbers of their supporters.

          Like

  4. ctdar says:

    According to fox legal Judge Napolitano, a treaty can supersede federal law but can NOT trump the Constitution and the individuals right to bear arms.

    Like

  5. dws says:

    I thought signing treaties became the “supreme law of the land” but http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/06/do-treaties-trump-the-constitution/ has a nice explanation of how this actually works from the federalist papers.

    With that being said, the only Federalist Paper (that I could find) which dealt with the question of treaties, in relation to the Constitution in the context we are discussing, was in Federalist #64 written by John Jay. In it, Jay explains how treaties will have the force of law:

    “Some are displeased with it [The Proposed Constitution], not on account of any errors or defects in it, but because, as the treaties, when made, are to have the force of laws…”

    He also explains that they will be the supreme law of the land, meaning affecting all states and their people:

    “Others, though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed, are averse to their being the SUPREME laws of the land.”

    And this interesting part about “law of nations”:

    However, there must have been those who had expressed doubt that this separation was a good enough safeguard because John Jay continues:

    But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.”

    The explanation of “law of nations” is worth a read.

    Like

    • stella says:

      As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.”

      (see reference in my comment, above)

      Like

  6. TC says:

    This smells like yet another end-around congress via executive action. The dangerous part of the small arms treaty is the tracking of arms and ammunition to the end user. Translated logically, this means at some point in the future we’ll have full registration not only of guns purchased from dealers, but also private sales. With a dirty smirk and fingers crossed behind their backs, they can say this does not affect 2nd amendment rights.

    Like

    • stella says:

      But it does. The 2nd amendment is not trumped. It even says that in the language of the treaty itself.

      Like

        • TC says:

          I’ve read the treaty before, though it was difficult to find online before Obama got re-elected. I’m not saying I agree with the scumbags pushing this; I’m saying that they will get up in front of the American people and lie to our faces again. It’s the classic redirect. You can still own a gun, but I get to know and approve any gun you buy or sell. Never mind the full registration list is awfully handy to have when it comes time to go door to door confiscating weapons.

          Like

          • partyzant says:

            If they know about mine, then they better ‘fess up about Fast and Furious as well as all the other gun running, cigarette trafficking and worse. Transparency works both ways. We are not serfs, we are free men and women in America.

            Like

          • Stormy says:

            Exactly. FDR’s Executive Order 6102 took everyone’s gold in 1933, how long before they come for arms?

            Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $366.59 today) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $177,352 today) or up to ten years in prison, or both. Most citizens who owned large amounts of gold had it transferred to countries such as Switzerland.

            *Wikipedia

            Like

  7. Here’s why and how: Once a treat like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is signed it never dies. We might prevent a 2/3 majority today, after next election or the next. But what about 15 years down the road, 20 years? At some point the liberals, the way this country is heading, will have the 2/3 majority they need. That makes every single election, from now on, count even more! We must, at all costs, prevent this 2/3 majority from ever happening.

    There is document (link below) called “International Small Arms Control Standards: National Controls Over the Access of Civilians to Small Arms and Light Weapons” (ISACS 03.30). Some of the “standards” for civilian firearm ownership include:
    Bans on firearms said to be “configured for military use” (U.N. speak for “assault weapons”)
    Bans on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
    Universal licensing of all gun owners
    National registration of firearms

    The future U.N. could use the signed ATT as a vehicle to mandate the draft ISACS 03.30 standards. If enough countries voluntarily adopt the standards it becomes the norm and the U.S. can then be viewed as “rogue” nation if they do not conform.

    The “anti-gun” lobby and the U.N. counter argue that ISACS 03.30 is only in draft form, but they intentionally made the ATT an ambiguous treaty. Much of the treaty consists of vague “norms” and “standards” and unwritten international law which can be re-interpreted and misapplied to mean whatever the global gun-ban movement wants it to mean. This is the real scary part: Any nation considering adoption of the treaty should realize that once the treaty is ratified, the U.N. could very well come back and say that the “standards” set down in ISACS 03.30 were what the nation already agreed to in signing and ratifying the treaty. Bait and switch.

    Here is a quote from John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador the U.N.: “Gun-control advocates will use the provisions (of the ATT just signed by Kerry) to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails.”

    In other words, what gun-control politicians can’t achieve in the U.S. through the legislative process, with its checks and balances and safeguards built into the U.S. Constitution, they’ll impose through the international treaty process.

    ISACS 03.30 link:

    http://tsmworldwide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/module-3.3.pdf

    Like

  8. auscitizenmom says:

    Well, there is proof positive that Obama wants to confiscate all our guns. The Liberals keep saying, along with Obama himself, “Obama doesn’t want to take away your guns.” And, he always says the opposite of what he intends to do.

    Like

  9. Josh says:

    Those currently with power in The United States of America are arming its enemies – those that want us dead. It is simply a matter of time before the big, massive, daily, killings we see elsewhere are here. (More to say but work calls…)

    Like

  10. texan59 says:

    My contention with all of this hoopla is the ease with which our gov’t. is so freely willing to take away our freedoms with this kind of doodoo, but they never seem to be willing to grant us back any they have ever taken away. It goes back to this whole thing of a “living” constitution that progs are so bully on. While times change and people change, there are but a few things that are truly written in stone. Just look at our history with SCOTUS. Over 200 years ago they said it was legal to discriminate against blacks – segregation was ok. Plessy v. Feguson, IIRC. We have legal precedent where SCOTUS says it can control what we grow on our own land – Wickard v. Filburn, I think in the next few years there is a good chance this could be overturned.

    The main objective we all have is to ensure that we elect more r’s to the House and Senate, even though some may not be as conservative as we might want, but with grass-roots pressure we let the true conservatives that we’ve got their back.

    Like

  11. czarowniczy says:

    In my opinion Kerry signed because he was told to. The Senate’s already told the POtuS the treaty’s dead-on-arrival but being a Constitutional scholar the POtuS – I’m betting – has found some way to squeeze the treaty in under extra-constitutional measures. If the Senate rejects a resolution of ratification, which historically has been a very rare occurrence, I’m wondering if the POtuS may try and end-run by saying the agreement is not with a foreign power but with an extra-governmental agency whose existence has already been agreed to by the US Senate and anything that comes out of the UN has been, de facto, agreed to by the Senate. That would most likely require a Supreme Court decision but could set up a Constitutional crisis – though the progressives wouldn’t call it that. He could also submit it to the Foreign Relations Committee and let it languish there until after the 2014 elections in hopes of a more butt-kissing Senate – it could stay there for years awaiting a 5th columnist Senate – the Constitution is silent on how long the Senate has to approve a resolution of ratification. Our POtuS is pushing us closer and closer to having a great deal of our national ‘freedoms’ and actions dictated by that thieving, crooked, 3rd world sotted bastion of international buggery and this treaty will be one of, if not the, defining moments in the destruction of our Constitution.
    If it does pass and he grasps it to his slimy, scaly bosom, you can bet that he’ll use it as the basis for issuing a host of disarming (literally and figuratively) Presidential Directives, feeling he won’t have to get Congress to pass any laws. I’d watch for him and his kinder, gentler fascist krewe go for more UN resolutions, especially if he does go for the post of UN poo-bah, in coordination with Bill and Prez Hillary, to advance their agendas through UN finagling vice Constitutional means. Bill did a lot of governing through dictate instead of Congress, why would Hillary and Mandingo?

    Like

    • WeeWeed says:

      But really, Z, who better than Jaques Effing?? After all, he negotiated our surrender to the Cong. Why not to the rest of the commies and musloids. :evil:

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        When it comes to our finally being rendered a 2nd world nation, as so many of the Usual Suspects and their newer border-crossing compadres are still having problems managing 3rd world status, I’m sure both Democratic and Republican quisling ranks will have no shortage of eager volunteers. Politicians sniff the wind and when they smell a storm’ abrewin’ most will run for cover rather than get wet.

        Like

    • partyzant says:

      That was well put. A chilling prospect, indeed.
      May be time for “Citizen’s Directives” to counter the blather.
      There are not enough Battalions in all the world to take on the armed American population.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        That depends upon the American citizens will to resist versus the screaming need to exist. More people revert to survival than fight emotions in a face-off with possible ‘severe bodily injury’, especially if they have families. Vietnam, the Latin Amercvamn and Mideast

        Like

        • czarowniczy says:

          Poof – WordPress and Microsoft once again, another ‘what happened and where did it go?’
          …American and Mideast cities I’ve seen when faced with occupation by military or other state forces in the main fold into compliant little occupiees. Ain’t hard to scare the populace into compliance, fear of property loss in a materialistic society, fear of family lo sin any society – and our psyops folks have had beaucoup practice over the last few decades – read those military specialty brag-mags and see how much the military’s learned-while-they-earned over the last ten years alone

          Like

    • Stormy says:

      He is pushing us towards a date with a caliphate.

      Interesting… as I typed that word, I noticed for the first time that the last four letters spell
      HATE

      Like

    • Stormy says:

      … but being a Constitutional scholar the POtuS … Seriously, I think my neighbors could hear me laugh out loud as I read that. :cool:

      Like

  12. annieoakley says:

    They have to get our guns to complete the fundamental transformation of the USA to Communism.

    Like

    • canadacan says:

      They can dream can’t they.
      I am reminded of old movies And there’s some kind of international crisis going on.
      One government official says to another government official” Yes I know we have a treaty with so and so but it was never ratified”.
      And the plot thickens.

      Like

  13. stella says:

    Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

    Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.

    He claimed the treaty raises “fundamental issues” concerning “individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

    Like

  14. This is just another of many illegal activities taken by this regime to set precedents and end the freedoms of the American people as we know them. http://www.modvive.com/2013/09/26/dangerous-conservativesthreatening-america-common-sense/

    Like

  15. michellc says:

    Refresh my memory. Wasn’t this up for a vote before the election and the U.S. blocked or postponed the vote?

    My fear with anything involving this administration is that we follow the rule of law and they can’t do this as it’s in violation of the Constitution but this administration ignores the rule of law and believes the Constitution is a piece of paper.
    So we can say they have to get 2/3 of the Senate but that doesn’t mean they’ll follow the law. I’ve yet to see Congress stop them from their many violations.

    Like

    • This thread is long; the discussion answers your question.
      Here are the Cliff Notes…

      There are ways to support the details of this Arms Treaty without Congressional ratification.
      Relinked from above…

      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/197901/executive-agreement

      Like

      • michellc says:

        I never doubted there was a way, there seems to always be a loophole. However, even without the loophole, have we seen congress willing to stop this administration? So even if it was in black and white, full proof that he couldn’t do this without the Senate, I would have no confidence in that he wouldn’t do it anyway. Why should he, when Congress has proven to him over and over he can trash the Constitution all he wants and they’re obviously fine with it.

        Obama administration did though hold it up when there was an election to worry about. Now that there is no election to worry about and they can continue with their plans to totally destroy this country they voted in favor of it.

        Like

      • Stormy says:

        *snip in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.

        WAIT…. who was president in 1937 ??? Frankie !!!!!!!

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s