US Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty

All in favor, say, "Heil!"

All in favor, say, “Heil!”

Straight from his latest diplomatic triumphs in Syria and in handing over control of the American-invented Internet to a lawless UN body, Secretary of State John Kerry signed an extreme anti-gun treaty drafted by the totalitarian and authoritarian states that make up the majority of the United Nations.

Kerry, who has had an all-but-sexual drive to find someone, anyone, to surrender the United States to, ever since he tried to cut a private deal with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, argues that the law does not infringe gun rights because it still allows hunters to have firearms, if government feels like giving them permission.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.

As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

The main objective of the treaty is mandatory global gun registration. It does this by requiring signatories to report all firearms transfers, down to the level of “end users.” This is the backstory to the current push for “common sense gun laws” like “universal background checks,” or backdoor registration.

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers….

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world’s top arms exporters — including Britain, Germany and France — to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.

The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that “history will be made” when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.”

The Coalition believes that, once this treaty is signed by Congo and South Sudan, the current violence in those African kleptocracies will come to an absolute standstill. There are some ideas so stupid that you pretty much have to be a globalist NGOnik or diplomat to believe them.

Of course, when that doesn’t happen, look for the same rootless globalists — like Kerry — who support the first treaty to propose a tightening. Because Kerry’s target is not some warlord in mismatched camo in whatever the natives are calling Stanleyville these days: his target is you.

Now, one may not be inclined to take the word of a retired sergeant, who is known in team room and Chancery alike for his disdain for diplomats and all their demoniac works, that this treaty is a steaming pile of that which issues from the south end of a northbound equine. So allow us to refer you to these words written four years ago by an actual striped-pants diplomat, and one who has, moreover, retired to not-quite-gun-free-but-working-on-it California, no less. In a long post on this treaty, he notes:

The treaty, as with all liberal/leftist efforts, seeks a massive role for the state and an implied one for lawyers, in those countries, such as ours, where we take the law seriously. Look at Article I, for example. The objectives laid out there would require an enormous new body of law and regulations to be drafted and implemented in the US; it would require it to be drafted in such a way as “to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms.” In other words, we would have to try to bring our laws and regulations into sync with those of the rest of the world. I do not need to spell out what that means when it comes to bearing arms.

Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 comprise the core of the treaty. These articles would provide endless employment activity for “activists’ and their lawyers. They establish obligations on the “State Parties” that would, in essence, kill the trade in small arms. The language about weapons “being diverted to the illicit market,” or “used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children” means endless lawsuits against exporting and importing states, manufacturers, and sellers. While the ostensible purpose is international trade, that would quickly become a domestic legal issue in the US. Say, for example, that a Glock, either one made in Austria or in a Glock factory in the US, were used for “illicit” purposes or was involved in an incident of “gender-based violence” in the US, the lawsuits would be ferocious. The threat of constant legal action effectively would halt the export and import of small arms–at least from and to those countries that take laws and treaty obligations seriously. The treaty would provide the basis for additional US domestic legislation that would incorporate the UN language and ideas into our laws. Private firm gun manufacturing and sales would be halted by the constant threat of lawsuits.

Again, these are the words of an actual diplomat, one who has served in Foggy Bottom, in many missions abroad, and actually in the United Nations itself. He speaks with the authority of the insider. And his conclusion?

While proponents claim that the UN Treaty would not infringe on the second amendment rights of Americans, that is a lie. The purpose of the treaty is to circumvent the second amendment by destroying the small arms industry and trade. It is an effort at a gun ban. They know that and we know that.

66 thoughts on “US Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty

  1. DSM

    Ballsy right before an election unless they’re judging the voters differently than in ’94? There may be a lot of well meaning people who support so called gun control but seeing that it’s now being pushed by laws outside of the country will take issue with it.

    1. RLTW

      This assumes a few things that are unfortunately not true any more: 1) The media will report this in a non-biased way. 2) The public is educated and wise enough to understand what this treaty is truly about. 3) Those people will get off their fat lazies to vote for politicians who will protect Constitutional rights. 4) Their votes will not be canceled out by non-citizen voters, dead voters, and systemic vote fraud. 5) There are still politicians who will protect Constitutional rights.

      Happy Friday everybody!

      1. Boat Guy

        A majority of the Senate has ALREADY indicated they will NOT ratify.
        Still … typical BS move by thei adminiatration expressing their profoud contempt for and disrespect of our Constitution.
        As for the blue helmets “Come and Take It”

          1. Boat Guy

            They’ll TRY. The most likely “implementers” are the hundreds of thousands of “Federal” LEO’s that have come up during this administration – and even some of them will not kick te doors of fellow citizens.
            As for the ones that DO choose to enforce this travesty – see Matt Brackens “Dear Mr Security Agent”.

        1. Mike Sanservino

          Also fellow boat guy (river assault division officer 1984-1989 Special Boat Unit XI)….the biggest difficulty that we as patriots face is the dumbing down of our citizens through the liberal propaganda machine known as the educational system, the hourly propaganda spewed throughout all forms of mast media including those thinly disguised as fact checking web sites ( Snopes for one example) and the broad and deep corruption within our federal and in many cases state governments. In WWII our country was assaulted from outside evil forces, now the evil has ensconced itself like a cancer within our country and its effects are bubbling to the surface daily.

  2. James

    You know,folks here have looked on with dismay at some of “bubba’s builds”,me,always thought gutsy showing errors and hopefully learning from them.All I can say to all the “bubbies”out there,keep at it!

    Oh,and learn from the mistakes!

  3. John Distai

    You’re mention on who “they” are targeting is salient. It doesn’t matter what issue a politician speaks on (guns, taxes, etc.) when they say “we want to make [ the other guy ] ‘accountable’ [ for whatever ]”, they are preying on the people’s skill at “projecting”.

    A great example is “taxing the rich” for “their fare share”. My wife and I look at our decent, but modest home, our decade old average cars, and our responsible and modest lifestyle and think “We’re not rich. We know people in brick McMansions who have family money, drive new luxury cars, send kids to expensive camps, own planes, etc. There are people who are richer than us, and even richer than the people we know. They aren’t targeting us. They must be targeting THOSE OTHER people BEYOND the horizon of the people we know. ”

    But when we take the time to actually look at the household income statistics, the center of the bullseye rhetoric doesn’t quite hit ground zero. But we are still covered by the target, and as a result we’ll end up with a larger fist greedy government fist jammed up our ass, extracting alms as we are THE OTHER GUY.

    The same thing with the rhetoric on guns. We project “Oh, they are after the cartels. They are after whatever illicit boogeyman we can think up.” Nope, they are after YOU.

    I have a colleague who has a new interest in firearms. They believe that the politicians anti-gun positions and the NRA’s position are based on the “fear industry”. Perhaps. They think “those politicians wouldn’t really DO THAT, would they? That’s impractical!” Yes, they would. And they will. They’ll do it through back door means.

    Always remember, when a politician speaks about an issue, YOU are the ‘OTHER GUY’.

  4. Tom Stone

    If Hillary Clinton is elected I expect to see a concerted effort to overturn the 2nd Amendment that has a good chance of succeeding.
    The consequences would be unfortunate.

    1. Boat Guy

      Dunnoas i’d say it has a “good chance at succeeding” and in any case the effort’s irrelevant.
      The consequences of such an effort would be far more than”unfortunate”; they’d be catastrophic.

  5. Pingback: WeaponsMan: US Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  6. Ned2

    No binding law can take effect in this country without the approval of Congress, correct?
    Time to talk to your local electedidiots and let them know you’re keeping track of things.

    1. Mr. 308

      Indeed. And common sense would tell you that no treaty should be able to implement changes to law that violate the constitution that is the basis for our laws.

      The problem here is that the constitution is more and more just a piece of paper. If the people in power ignore it and we-the-people just sit back and accept any power grab, then the state gets to do whatever it wants. One could argue that Obamacare is exactly this.

      Look at HRC (figuratively of course), how many drop dead serious national security laws has she clearly violated, including her oath of office, and yet, crickets.

      One has to ask then, could they try ramming this down our throats? Yes, they could. Would you put it past them? No. Is this what they plan to do?

      Clearly, it must be.

      1. JAFO

        Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, known as the Treaty Clause, gives the President the power to negotiate treaties, which must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI Clause 2, make the Constitution, Treaties and Federal statutes ‘the supreme law of the land’

        So a treaty can end run constitutional rights, maybe.

        Ted Cruz wrote a pretty good essay on this a couple of years ago.

  7. Smitty

    The U.N. is a communist organization that supports the worst dictators on the planet. Here are some past members agreeing with the treaty.

  8. Sabrina Chase

    I am not surprised that our esteemed bloghost is familiar with the ponderings of the Diplomad. Dip can tell some pretty good war stories his own self in the archives, and it is interesting to see how the actual functionaries of State think and act. His scathing opinions of the current administration (and one of the candidates) are refreshing and fun to read.

    1. Hognose Post author

      I occasionally ran into a dip like him in my JCET days. This usually happened in countries where the US Mission was small and not career-enhancing. In the least of them, even the Ambassador was a career foreign service officer. (No one will give the Democrat or Republican of his choice $100k in bribes campaign contributions to be Ambassador to Suriname or be Chief of Mission at the consulate in Djibouti).

  9. Ken

    Vote well and vote often:) Seriously, join the NRA and your state rifle association if you haven’t already. While I’m not happy that the NRA seems to spend 75-cents of every dollar I send them on ad campaigns asking me for more money, they are by far the most powerful voice on our side in DC.

    1. Boat Guy

      I send my money to them, but really lend my support to groups like VCDL who have far more consistency and integrity and are far more effective pound-for-pound.

        1. Hognose Post author

          He’s referring to a state lobby group, I believe the Virginia Citizens’ Defense League.

          There’s one in most states, some of them are very good and powerful in their state houses. Some are very good but not powerful in the state house (Mass’s group, the Gun Owners’ Action League, is like that. They’re organized and can turn out probably the largest grassroots protests in the state, but it’s a one-party state and party ideology is “guns == evil”. So they’re screwed).

          And in some places they’re not good. Here in NH we have three separate groups with separate egos in charge, which deplete their energy squabbling with each other, and none of which has much influence. Despite that, we have fairly good gun and Self Defense laws, although we’re the last holdout in Northern New England with a residual Jim Crow (albeit inexpensive and must-issue) permit system. The legislators have more gun enthusiasm than the gun groups, here. The “local” lobbyist NRA pays to work NH is from another state and is an anti-gun Fudd, he’s literally worse than useless.

          I work my local pols also. I don’t have a sign for anyone running for Federal office but do have my local state rep candidate’s, and I’ll be attending her fundraiser and, in the blog, plugging her husband’s next book. State reps are very local and accessible in NH, there are 400 (or 400-something?) in a state of 1.3 million souls. In fact, most people have two, but the candidate for the other seat never returned a call offering support.

          1. Boat Guy

            The VCDL I am referring to is indeed Virginia Citizens Defense League. Well worth supporting (especially as they sue perky katie for “editing” their replies)

    2. John M.

      Join NRA to add your voice to the bazillion others. And then join GOA to keep NRA honest.

      -John M.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Canada also has not implemented anything like ITAR. So a Canadian exporter can export small arms to his heart’s content, but he can’t put Magpul stocks on them because those are controled by ITAR from the US and the US State Department, in its overreach to create a domestic gun ban, has made them ITAR items.

    1. 11B-Mailclerk

      I have envisioned, in a work of fiction of course, a patriotic vandal cutting the knotted barrel portion off, rendering the sculpture into a decent if somewhat “bubba” snub-nose. Perfect for liberation work.

      Said patriot would of course weld the cut-off stub to the base of the pedestal, along with a bunch of broken chains, manacles, etc, and the obligatory broken hammer and broken sickle.

      A man can dream, right?

      1. Cowboy Dan

        Hey, man, it’s ART. Freedom of expression, man. We have a right to do that.

        Two guys with a portable welder and a gas powered cutof saw could probably get a lot done before the cops showed up.

        They’d need a couple kids or old ladies in wheelchairs to run interference, but they could be in Jersey before the NYPD got the word out. A bit of oil down the exhaust manifold might do some good, too.

  10. Ray

    So will you fight or just go BLAGH BLAGH BLAGH! till the UN censors you off the internet? Y’all have been talking smack for YEARS and now its game day.

    1. Boat Guy

      NO it’s not “game day” moron.
      Unless/until they start kickin doors we stand fast. They gotta shoot first. THEN we go.

      1. JB

        Can you define “they”? There have been may seemingly “go” days in the last 5-6 years but nobody “go’d”….Slow boiling the frog don’t cha know

      2. Ray

        Cowards and idiots are not men. You are both. and a cockroach. The only thing cockroaches do is hide till the foot comes down. It is far to late to act when the stack is at the door. I’d tell bugs like you to ask the WACO dead about that but it wouldn’t matter. You will never fight. You have nothing like a backbone. AND THEY SHOT FIRST 25 years ago. Oh guys like you might “do somthin” but mostly it will be to rat out your buddies for the 13 silver the .GOV will offer. Or you are a .GOV troll. Ether way I care nothing for your opinion. Of me or anything else.

      3. Kirk

        They’re never going to kick in the doors.

        These people have been playing the long game since forever. What they will do is gradually ratchet up the hasslebof being a gun owner/free man, and when you shufgle off this mortal coil, your horrified heirs will turn in all your instruments of evil to the nearest statist collection point. A generation or two after that, they’ll commence the hauling off to camps for those few remaining recalcitrants.

        Or, so they plan. I suspect this won’t end the way they think it will.

        1. John Distai

          I agree. They may also freeze bank accounts to get you to willingly “comply”.

  11. Pingback: US Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty – 'Nox & Friends

  12. Diane D

    This armed citizen just self-nullified Kerry’s treaty. Kerry can take that piece of paper, cover it with Heinz catsup and shove up his you-know-what. Molon Labe!

  13. Aesop

    Kerry’s been afraid of guns ever since he shot himself in the face with his own M79 fragments, wrote up his own Purple Heart commendation, and then bootstrapped himself back to MA as fast as he could rush the papers through command channels.

    Along the lines Lincoln noted, “They’ve signed a UN gun ban. Now let the UN enforce it.”

      1. Aesop

        Strictly speaking, the actual quote is apocryphal.
        But in any event, it absolutely applies here.

        Personally, I welcome this, as it finally gives an excuse to make open warfare on the UN, and rid ourselves of that global abortion once and for all, and chase the last silly adherent of it from our shores.
        I don’t see even NYFS rising up in their defense.

        1. Aesop

          Also, Congress would have to ratify such a treaty, which would be moot prima facie, as no secretary of state nor Congress itself has plenipotentiary power to abrogate the Constitution, however fervently Lurch and his leash-holder may wish it were otherwise.
          This is mainly virtue-signaling among those who think the document was written in pencil whenever it suits their intentions.

          The election timing is rather fortuitous, at least among those who are literate – which only precludes at least 47% of the electorate.

          1. John Distai

            Lurch signed it and Congress placed it on a shelf. They’ll take it off the shelf and ratify it when Congress has the right mix of stooges.

  14. Keith

    The SJW’s/Cosmo’s/Tranzis/Progressives must be dancing in the streets over this. And the MSM is already getting ready to report us as radical anti-government types.

    1. RLTW

      I’m pretty sure I AM a radical anti-government type. Certainly the type of government who would defecate on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

  15. Pingback: WeaponsMan: US Signs UN Gun Ban Treaty Today… | The Defensive Training Group

  16. Pingback: Daily Links | Waiting for the Barbarians

  17. Docduracoat

    The really amazing thing is the Obama administration has determined that any gunsmith who adds threads to the end of a single gun barrel has now “manufactured” a defense article and must register and pay the yearly $2,000 fee to register as a firearm exporter
    Even if he never exports any firearms

  18. 11B-Mailclerk

    They intend to do us to doom by “lawfare” not by door-kicking. They are counting on the general lawfulness of the gun-owning-types, and the proven track record of most folks tolerating (if not complying) with various regulations and restrictions.

  19. paul

    Is this more smoke and mirrors? Are they trying to invoke a panic for more gun/ammo buying.
    Are Swillary, Obama, Kerry and their ilk being funded by the major arms manufacturers for profit?
    Win/Win for them. They get us to panic buy, they sell to Unca Sam and they double their profits. Look at the ammo scam that has occurred over the years. .Gov uses .22 ammo? In what? All the suppressed 10/22s they have issued?
    Forget the illusion of doors getting kicked in. Not going to happen. They have other ways. Gun in the house? That is a health hazard. No medical insurance for you, or over the top premiums.
    Turn in your guns or face a gun tax. Refuse to pay? Garnish wages. (anyone having dealt with garnishment knows).
    I know a lot of people raising hell about all of this. They are the same ones who bitch about working conditions yet crumble on a strike vote, They are the same ones who bitch about WalMart ruining their town, yet they shop there every weekend. Their idea of tough times is warm beer and the big game is blacked out locally.
    When the green light pops all the bullshit stops.

  20. franklin

    There has never been a government that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.

    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was given to the People, like all the other rights in the Bill or Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly guarantees the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”?

    Of course not.

    That is assumed.

    It is implicit in the nature of all kinds of armies —- be they militia or regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.
    They are all “armed forces”.
    They all “bear arms”.
    They all carry guns.
    That is what they do.
    It certainly no more requires an amendment to the Constitution to state that “the Militia” has the RKBA , than a specific statement that the army Congress is empowered to raise may be manned by armed troops.

    “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals … it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government … it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.” Ayn Rand

  21. David Wheeler

    All I can say is the time is nigh to begin whacking politicians — period.
    all is lost — get some

  22. Tierlieb

    Dear Americans,

    you are fucked. Trust me, as a German, as we have already been fucked, so we know.

    Please make sure that your unregistered guns never show up anywhere. Hope that all those 4473 forms you filled have been stored quite badly by well-meaning FFLs. Or thrown away by disgruntled ATF employees. At least, oppose any “common sense” moves to digitise them.

    Your 2nd amendment is phrased rather abstractly. It has to be to survive technological changes and still stay valid. But the opposite of that is that it becomes really easy to say “yes, we are not infringing on any right to keep and bear arms, we are just adjusting it for the 21st century. Look, there is an international consensus as you can see from these documents”.

    We Germans have been fighting some proposals based on these treaties this year already, which we’re *wink*wink*nudge*nudge* not infringing our our rights to keep semi-automatic rifles, just about clarifying categories (like moving semi-automatics from class B, “restricted to permit holders” to class A, “prohibited”. Say no more.)

    Central registration is the step after which you are lost. And do not kid yourselves with “lost in freak boating accident” stories or “I sold it in a private transfer, I just cannot remember to whom”. Those might fly now, while what you own is still considered your property, but not later.


  23. Pingback: UN intervenes into American society | NewZSentinel

  24. Pingback: The 4th Media » UN Intervenes into American Society

  25. Pingback: UN Intervenes into American Society - Capitol Hill Outsider - CHO

Comments are closed.