Will the Senate threaten the 2nd Amendment?

by Doug Book,  staff writer

As New York City plays host to a conference which will shape the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) into final form, most 2nd Amendment supporters are concerned that stealth language or overly broad applications woven into the document will serve to separate Americans from their right to keep and bear arms. After all, why else would preliminary versions of the Treaty be so difficult to obtain and U.N., pre-conference position statements remain consistently absent from the internet?  

Barack Hussein Obama leads the most anti-gun rights Administration in the nation’s history. Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and recently appointed, ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones have spoken often and passionately about the importance of implementing more restrictive gun control legislation.  

But the gun-grabbing Regime will not be able to ratify the UN’s global gun control measure without first securing a 2/3rds majority of senators to vote in favor. And it won’t be easy to convince 67 politicians to sign onto a document which countless critics have spent nearly a decade rightly representing as a worldwide assault on the 2nd Amendment. Especially not as the American public must once again be told that the document has to be “passed” in order to find out what’s IN it!

Late last year the Heritage Foundation obtained an ATT “Draft Paper” from an NGO participating in the Treaty mark-up. The Paper makes it clear that the finished product would be broad in scope, controlling everything “from rifle scopes to battleships.” And though the Treaty purports to monitor only “international arms transfers,” document language shows the UN also wishes to control “internal transfers” as “any firearm transfer—meaning any change in ownership…might conceivably somehow affect another nation…”

Therefore the ATT will demand signatories control and monitor “transfers including ‘transport’ across national territory.” To accomplish this, a nation would necessarily “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory,” creating records on “the type of arms transferred and their ‘end users’.” So as international records would be kept of all weapons bought and sold within the United States, the Treaty would create not only a global arms registry, but the rules by which arms might be transferred and to whom.

Would Senators sympathetic to global arms control try to slip these and other unconstitutional ATT edicts past American voters?  

DC politicians—including Republicans—have already written purposely misleading and legally ineffective language into both the 2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Acts for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public into believing their constitutional rights were being looked after.  As for treaties, they commonly include “reservations;” that is, language designed to “define and limit the effect of a ratified treaty.” A few dedicated, gun-grabbing Senators might get the idea of attaching a codicil to the ATT, claiming it would prevent the ratified Treaty imposing upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people thereby safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course they wouldn’t bother to inform Americans that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically forbids any reservations which are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the Treaty! Would members of the Washington political class be so dishonest as to try such an underhanded stunt?

It’s doubtful that a sufficient number of Senators would risk the fury of the NRA and gun owning voters. But then, stranger things have certainly happened in the nation’s capitol.  After all, a Supreme Court Chief Justice has just prostituted both himself and the Constitution!

Maybe keeping tabs on the Senate wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:


To read more use this link:


Further reading:

(1) http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/UNArmsTradeTreaty_USSenateLetter.pdf

(2) http://propheticnewsblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/un-arms-trade-treatyloosing-our-right.html

(3) http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-will-restrict-your-gun-rights/

(4) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/dc3364.doc.htm

This day in history July 13th

1863: The Draft Riots, protesting unfair conscription in the Civil War began in New York. The rioters resented the fact that wealthier men could afford to pay a $300 commutation fee to hire a substitute.

In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. 

What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below

Be Sociable, Share!

2 thoughts on “Will the Senate threaten the 2nd Amendment?”

  1. Coach, please note the following concerning UN gun regulations. Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following limits on the federal government's power to negotiate treaties. Jefferson noted that the Senate cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws, laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution.

    "In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

    "Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812. http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm

    Note that Congress had passed legislation in the early 20th century to protect migrating birds, the Supreme Court later deciding that the law was unconstitutional on the basis of the 10th Amendment.

    However, Congress was determined to protect birds, 10th Amendment protected state sovereignty be damned. So Congress used it's power to make treaties to negotiate a bird protecting law with Canada to get around the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court deciding in Congress's favor on the treaty approach in Missouri v. Holland, 1920. But also note that there are no references to Jefferson's clarification of the limits of the federal government's power to negotiate treaties in the Holland opinion.

    Regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Founding States made 2A to clarify that they had never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate civilian firearms, Congress having only Section 8 authority to regulate military firearms. So similarly as the case with Holland imo, the feds are again trying to use their power to negotiate treaties as an illegal back door to regulate firearms in the absence of express constitutional authority to do so.

    1. B. Johnson,

      A great comment and I certainly agree with your points. Unfortunately the nation is no longer governed either by the Constitution or by men who are concerned with holding to its intent and language. Therefore any means by which our rights can be overthrown will be explored and probably latched onto by the likes of Obama, Reid, Holder and company. Were there 67 Senators corrupt enough to ratify the Treaty, who would stop them? The Supreme Court?? The Department of Justice? The point is, this is no longer a nation of laws. So intrigues against our rights–such as the ATT– must be stopped before they can be passed through the congress. Here's hoping there are enough reasonably honest Senators to do just that.

      Thanks for reading and commenting on CiR.

Comments are closed.