Do Your Senators Oppose UN Gun Grab?

[middlefinger]

Do Your Senators Oppose UN Gun Grab?
Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 9:09 AM
Tags: GOAGun BannersIANSAUnited NationsUnited Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Do Your Senators Oppose UN Gun Grab?


Gun Owners of America
Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The good news is that 30 Senators have signed onto a letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

The bad news is that a global small arms treaty could still pass unless more Senators come out in opposition.

Last week, a so-called UN “preparatory committee” met for the third time to work on the massive Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The ATT is the most comprehensive treaty of its kind and would regulate worldwide trade of weapons on everything from battleships to bullets. Few details of the treaty have been made public, but it is widely expected that the final draft will:

Require gun owner registration
Require ammunition “microstamping”
Define “manufacturing” so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license
Include a ban on some types of semi-automatic firearms
Include a ban .50 caliber firearms
Demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.
Of course, we know that the Obama administration supports all of these proposals and would love to get them passed into law. Obama’s negotiators at the UN have already expressed full support of the treaty and will work to include gun control provisions they haven’t been able to push through the Congress.

The deadline for a final version of a treaty is July 2012, at which time it will be sent to the various member countries for ratification.

Kansas Senator Jerry Moran (R) drafted a letter to President Obama stating that our Second Amendment rights are “not negotiable” and pledges to “oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items.”

In the Untied States the treaty will go to the Senate, where it requires 67 votes to be ratified. Conversely, we need 34 votes to kill the ATT.

So we’re still four commitments short of defeating the treaty – and that doesn’t account for any Senators who are “playing politics” and who may end up supporting the ATT with the right amount of pressure.

And you can bet that the pressure will be on to get this treaty ratified before the 2012 elections.

So far, the following Senators have joined Sen. Moran in publicly opposing any anti-gun treaty:

Ayotte (NH)
Blunt (MO)
Boozman (AR)
Burr (NC)
Coburn (OK)
Cochran (MS)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Chambliss (GA)
Crapo (ID)
DeMint (SC)
Enzi (WY)
Graham (SC)
Hatch (UT)
Heller (NV)
Hoeven (ND)
Hutchison (TX)
Inhofe (OK)
Isakson (GA)
Johanns (NE)
Kyl (AZ)
Paul (KY)
Roberts (KS)
Rubio (FL)
Sessions (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Thune (SD)
Vitter (LA)
Wicker (MS)

But 30 Senators is not enough. We need at least 34 to come out publicly in opposition to the ATT – and a few extra as “insurance.”

ACTION: Contact your Senators and urge them to cosign the Moran letter opposing any UN treaty that infringes on our Second Amendment rights. The pre-written letter thanks those who have already signed, and urges other to do so right away. So please send the letter even if one or both of your Senators already signed on.

And if you are not already a member of GOA, please consider joining today to help us continue the fight against UN-imposed gun control.

Click Here to send your Senators a prewritten message.

Gun Owners of America http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=51680506

[redeye202]

Their staff will relay my concerns to them I was told.

[NuclearSociety]

Their staff will relay my concerns to them I was told.

That's not unsettling at all is it

[redeye202]

That's not unsettling at all is it

Ya, nothing new,same crap different day is all.

In Washington they only listen to money,if you have lots of it you are a citizen to be listened to,if you have little to none,you are a subject to be ignored.

[Brick]

Already being discussed see:

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/1...ty-page-4.html

Starting at post # 35.

[bluedog46]

carper and coons ( delaware) will both vote however the false messiah obama wants them to. Most libs cant even read the constitution

[mrnyman]

Its already a done deal, Bill Clinton already signed on to the UN small arms reduction treaty back in 92' .

All UN "laws " are binding and supercedes US laws.

Its just a matter of time when the US government will enforce the UN's small arms reduction treaty.

[Brick]

Its already a done deal, Bill Clinton already signed on to the UN small arms reduction treaty back in 92' .

All UN "laws " are binding and supercedes US laws.

Its just a matter of time when the US government will enforce the UN's small arms reduction treaty.

Quite fortunately you are wrong on all counts. The treaty hasn't even been presented in final form yet so not even a dickweed like Bill Clinton could sign it. Besides which even if he did sign it, it must still be ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate.

Read the whole article at: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ser-to-passage

UN Arms Trade Treaty Closer to Passage
Written by Raven Clabough
Friday, 22 July 2011 14:32
0The United Nations is preparing to finalize its Arms Trade Treaty in 2012, better known in the United States as the Small Arms Treaty, after a series of talks in the Third Preparatory Committee took place last week. The final talks on the treaty have been scheduled for four weeks next summer, and new rules indicate that a majority vote is not necessary in order for the treaty to be passed. The Heritage Foundation contends that though the stated purpose of the treaty is to “address the absence of commonly agreed international standards for the transfer of conventional arms, which, it is argued, contribute to war, crime, and terrorism,” the treaty poses a threat to American liberties and interests.

Throughout the talks on the treaty, members of the UN Security Council — which includes China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — voiced concerns over the establishment of a supranational authority. Security Council members and the European Union have now managed to eliminate the presence of that supranational authority originally designated by the treaty, replacing it with a more general statement of obligations related to arms trade which are to be fulfilled nationally, not globally.

Once approved a treaty becomes law in the U.S. but no treaty supercedes the Constitution.

Last, what does not exist cannot be enforced.

[Iris Mark]

I have a feeling that if the NRA leadership is making speeches at the UN...something is up...Treaty's can be broken, but we don't want the language of civilian firearms in the document in the first place....the Senate can shut this proposal down. Screw the UN...waste of Money and resources...I say we condemn the building, hire a wrecking ball and send them foreigners packing.

[das]

Casey sent me some BS non response. He is just a tool IMO