The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday approved a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty aimed at regulating the estimated $60 billion international arms trade, brushing aside gun rights groups’ concerns that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry in the U.S.
With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 155-3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against the proposal.
U.S. gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. The activists said they do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.
One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and “end users, as appropriate” for at least 10 years.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN,” the letter said.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”
Is the 2nd Amendment about to be sold out to the UN?
Sounds like a boon to domestic gun manufacturers that don't do much international business everywhere. This is not a direct tariff, but the extra cost of making these reports and lists will certainly be laid at the feet of the international weapons manufacturers.
No registry of the guns in the country is needed. All the treaty requires is tracking of the international transfer of weapons. So only when the arms change national hands will they be listed on some invoice sent to the UN. There is no requirement to track it afterwards, unless it is exported again.
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.
Given that being forced to register your gun isn't a violation of the 2nd amendment... no.
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
You don't have anything saying that it is... so. We're both on the same footing. Given the text of the 2nd amendment, it's logical to assume it's not a violation until a court rules otherwise.
No, that's not logical. If something hasn't been ruled on, that's simply it. Unless you are saying it's your opinion that it's not a violation (in which case I disagree), you can't say definitively it isn't.
Correct. There's nothing in there to suggest that requiring registration of Arms would constitute an infringement, any more than requiring voters to register constitutes an infringement of suffrage rights.
Slickdeals is able to share the best deals because of the contributions of users like you! If you found a great deal,
please share it with others by posting in our forums.
Welcome to Slickdeals!
Save money here by finding the lowest and cheapest price, best deals and bargains, and hot coupons. We're all about
community driven bargain hunting with thousands of free discounts, promo codes, reviews and price comparisons.
Don't worry, we'll help you find your way. If you haven't already, check out this
that explains the features of our site.