un gun ban?

Discussion in 'Glock Forum' started by Burrito, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. Burrito

    Burrito New Member

    Hi everyone, I'm discussed with the though of this becoming a reality. Just wanted to here some of your thoughts on this possible monstrosity.
     
  2. dwcfastrice

    dwcfastrice Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member


  3. Darthash473

    Darthash473 New Member

    22
    0
    http://www.heritage.org/research/re...iteria-for-transfers-pose-problems-for-the-us

    It's lengthy, but worth the time- if you don't succumb to ADOS (Attention Deficit....Oooh Shiny)

    Just the run down on the ATT. It's not a ban exactly, but (at least what I gather) would severely effect the import/export of firearms making the export country responsible for the crimes. An End User Agreement that would force the US to adhere to the International Courts and Law. Yet, leaves countries that are less honest to support terrorist and other nonsense. Most notably, allow countries in the Middle East to support terrorists/insurgents and prohibit the US to sell arms to countries like Israel.
     
  4. 03Armory

    03Armory New Member

    26
    0
  5. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    1,348
    5
    There are already 58 Senators opposed to the treaty if it has any impact on civilian ownership. It will not make it through the Senate. Even if it does make it through the Senate, the Constitution cannot be overridden by a treaty.

    If the treaty were approved and there was some attempt to take action against civilian gun ownership, it would be done via ATF. Congress can defund the program, or they can do as they've been doing for years and specify that no funds appropriated may be used for any type of national gun registration program. There are so many protections involved and so many ways to stop it, that I'm really not concerned.

    I've written my Senators, but at this point I consider most of the hype surrounding this, as is being put out by the various gun organizations, NRA, NAGR, etc, is nothing more than a fund raising drive on their part. If they whip their membership into a frenzy, they'll renew their memberships, maybe upgrade their memberships and donate money to fight this alleged threat. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Argyle64

    Argyle64 New Member

    It won't pass. I can't say don't worry about because you should but it won't pass. Even if it did it would be career suicide for every politician that voted for it.
     
  7. Burrito

    Burrito New Member

    Thanks guys, nice input!
     
  8. shotgun

    shotgun Junior Member

    July 27 2012 NO US participation, in UN small arms treaty. after that the whole thing feal apart. To discuss guns, this close to an election is political suicide.
     
  9. GAgal

    GAgal Well-Known Member

    1,000
    94
    Welcome to the Forum shotgun! Enjoy.
     
  10. sgtcowboyusmc

    sgtcowboyusmc New Member

    1,329
    0
    And it was announced today that no agreement could be reached!
     
  11. Burrito

    Burrito New Member

    I couldn't feel more relieved. I'm so happy that this did not happen!
     
  12. Thesarge

    Thesarge "The Sarge"

    I am very glad this fell apart. I give credit to the NRA for their work and presentations before the UN. Bill
     
  13. dutchs

    dutchs Well-Known Member

    1,000
    195
    UN states fail to reach global arms trade treaty





    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Member states failed to reach agreement Friday on a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade, and some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference.

    Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some major loopholes by Friday’s deadline for action. But the U.S. announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty — and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

    The U.N. General Assembly voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, with the U.S. casting a ‘‘no’’ vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration’s position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.

    The United States insisted that a treaty had to be approved by the consensus of all 193 U.N. member states.

    Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, the conference chairman, said treaty supporters knew ‘‘this was going to be difficult to achieve’’ and there were some delegations that didn’t like the draft though ‘‘the overwhelming majority in the room did.’’ He added that some countries from the beginning of negotiations had ‘‘different views’’ on a treaty, including Syria, Iran and North Korea.

    Despite the failure to reach agreement, Moritan predicted that ‘‘we certainly are going to have a treaty in 2012.’’

    He said there are several options for moving forward in the General Assembly which will be considered over the summer, before the world body’s new session begins in September.

    Britain has taken the lead in pushing for a treaty to reduce the impact of the illicit arms trade.

    Ahead of Friday’s meeting, Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg discussed treaty prospects with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in London and told reporters and both urged the treaty’s adoption.

    ‘‘Global rules govern the sale of everything from bananas to endangered species to weapons of mass destruction, but not guns or grenades,’’ Clegg said. ‘‘This anomaly causes untold suffering in conflicts around the world. 1,000 people are killed daily by small arms wielded by terrorists, insurgents and criminal gangs.’’

    The secretary-general said he was disappointed at the failure to agree on a treaty, calling it ‘‘a setback.’’ But he said he was encouraged that states have agreed to continue pursuing a treaty and pledged his ‘‘robust’’ support.

    At the end of the negotiating session, Mexico read a joint statement from more than 90 countries saying they ‘‘are determined to secure an Arms Trade Treaty as soon as possible.’’[​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
  14. Burrito

    Burrito New Member

    Thank you NRA and my fellow NRA members! I hope it never happens!
     
  15. I got an e-mail notification from the NRA on this. I'm very pleased, but the fight is not over.

    Jim
     
  16. ckuenzer331

    ckuenzer331 Member

    448
    0
    I'm betting I got the same email.... Did you see the Cyber Bill has an amendment to limit magazine capacity? Might want to look into that too...
     
  17. I read (much of) the proposal at the link above. Personally, I don't believe it can have TOO much effect on individual law-abiding citizens of the USofA.

    BUT, HAVING SAID THAT--- I did go to the web sites of both of t he Senators from the state of WI and filled out their contact forms urging them to CAREFULLY examine the treaty and vote against it if there is ANYTHING in it that could possibly be used as a foot-hold or building block toward gun control here in the US.
     
  18. I got a surprise today. I actually got a reply from my Senator on the email I sent! AND -- It actually reads as if a human (though perhaps not him) wrote it. Here is the reply:

    ----Begin Quote ----

    Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty. I appreciate hearing from you.

    In December 2006, the UN General Assembly agreed to draft a treaty that would establish a set of internationally recognized standards to control the international trade of conventional firearms. The proposed treaty would not apply to domestic trade of conventional arms, and upholds "the sovereign right and responsibility of any state to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems."

    The proposed treaty has been debated by numerous countries during several meetings, the last of which was a month-long negotiation session in New York during July 2012. Supporters of this treaty argue that standards are needed because careless distribution of arms leads to violations of international law, civilian casualties, and humanitarian disasters. They also claim that the irresponsible transfer of conventional weapons can destabilize security in regions throughout the world. Those in opposition disagree with the notion of global arms control. For the deal to be struck, all 193 UN nations had to agree on the text of the treaty. They were unable to reach an agreement.

    In the United States, treaties must have the support of 67 Senators to be ratified. Recently, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton expressing his concern that this treaty would signal an unacceptable expansion of gun control and limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans by, among other actions, regulating domestic manufacturing or trade of firearms.

    I agree that the right of law abiding Americans to own a gun should be protected. However, laws prohibiting felons and other potentially dangerous individuals from owning guns are reasonable and effective ways to reduce violent crime in our communities. In the past, the Senate has considered a variety of gun safety measures. I carefully evaluate each of these proposals, and I only support gun control legislation that corresponds to two important principles. First, I do not believe we should deprive law abiding gun owners, particularly hunters and target shooters, of their Second Amendment rights. Second, I only support proposals that I believe will unquestionably make our communities safer.

    Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on this treaty. Again, thank you for contacting me.


    Sincerely,

    Herb Kohl
    United States Senator


    ---- End Quote ----

    I feel like this is a reasonable (though slightly politic-y) response.
     
  19. ckuenzer331

    ckuenzer331 Member

    448
    0
    I hate to tell you this, but it's a form letter.... I got the exact same letter/response from my senator.... From MI.... :(