December 31st, 2012

UN Delegates Hope that Newtown Shooting Will Help them Pass Small Arms Treaty


Excerpt from Reuters news article:

EXPLOSIVE ISSUE

European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue.

Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past,” Abramson said, adding that “the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway.”

Keene [from NRA] rejected the idea of bringing the Newtown tragedy into the discussion of an arms trade treaty.

I find it interesting that some of the folks that advocate the treaty say it would have no impact whatever within the United States but that it needs to be passed to prevent another occurrence of a school shooting such as took place in Newtown,” he said. “Both of those positions can’t be correct.”

Obama administration officials have tried to explain to U.S. opponents of the arms trade pact that the treaty under discussion would not affect domestic gun sales and ownership.

“Our objectives for the ATT (arms trade treaty) have not changed,” a U.S. official told Reuters. “We seek a treaty that fights illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have articulated throughout.”

“In particular, we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms,” the official added.

The NRA opposes the small arms treaty specifically because it does affect civilian arms, not just arms in the hands of government armed forces.   Proponents of the treaty, including anti-gun NGOs, have consistently insisted that it would not affect gun ownership in the US, but as NRA President Keen notes, it is peculiar that those very same people are now saying that the Newtown shooting will help them get the treaty passed.

But the most important bit of slight of hand to pay attention to is the statement by the “U.S. official:

“In particular, we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms,” the official added.

Now, the first reaction of most gun owners who read that is to get all warm and fuzzy, and reassured, since he says they will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms.  But let’s recall what the current crop of oath breaking traitors in power think you have a “right” to.   According to Senator Diane Feinstein, you don’t have a constitutional right to own any gun among a long list of firearms she finds offensive, according to her own pet criteria.  That list specifically bans the further manufacture, sale, and transfer of many military style semi-automatic rifles, as well as any firearm (except .22s) that take a detachable magazine and have one or more of a list of features SHE determines are of military use.   She then goes on to “except” certain firearms – for now – from her ban.  Basically, you have a right to whatever firearms she decides to exempt from her ban, and you don’t have a right to any she decides to include.

She tells us that she is respecting constitutional rights because her ban:

  • Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    • Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    • Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    • Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

What that means is that you can keep the weapons you own, for now, but when you die, they die with you.  You CANNOT pass them on to your children, or to anyone else.   So much for THEIR rights.  Your children and other heirs have NO RIGHT to own any of them.

And one more thing her bill will do is:

  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

That means you will be registered, finger printed, photographed, and tracked LIKE A CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER for the rest of your life, and when you die, they will take the guns, unless they decide to take them sooner – since you don’t have a “right” to anything unless they let you keep it, they can change their minds at any time.

So, when a U.S. official says they won’t accept a UN small arms treaty that infringes on your right to bear arms, you should know that such a promise is meaningless, since they don’t think you have a right  to keep any firearms unless they say you can, and according to their own magic criteria of what is acceptable or not.  And certainly, they don’t see military pattern semi-automatic rifles as being covered by the Second Amendment at all.  Nor do they see magazines over 10 rounds as being covered.

Stewart Rhodes




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

12 Responses to “UN Delegates Hope that Newtown Shooting Will Help them Pass Small Arms Treaty”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    Alexander Watters Says:

    Personally I’d like to know what Switzerland’s policy is going to be when they have to tell thier citizens they have to surrender ALL of the military weapons they have in their homes.
    It would save the country a lot of money. They wouldn’t have to have the yearly contest
    for shooters that the government provides the Ammo for. That would save them a Ton of cash.
    Are they being required to ask their citizens to give up their rights to keep and bear Military Arms? What is their crime rate now compared to the United State’s?
    It would be interesting to know how they feel about all of this?

  2. 2
    Jennifer Says:

    It seems to me that all the people do here at Oath Keepers is copy reports of what’s in the news and what’s hot about gun control “at the moment”. I have read and find what “you won’t do” to Americans, but how can you take your Constitutional oath that says, “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States” on one hand, and on the other hand say “you won’t” obey the orders of the President? (ie, indefinite detention, suspend habeus corpus)
    This makes little sense to me. If you take your oath seriously, the you will obey what the Commander in Chief says, whether it comes by his signing statements or executive orders.
    It seems that your “drawing a line in the sand” means very little except to those who draw that line and where they (you) deem that “line” to be, and for what purpose at that particular time.
    Lawyers and spec ops and cops have alot of pull in this country, we know that. It seems like ya’ll are just sitting back waiting for the citizens to revolt so you can pull out your safety deposit boxes, stash the cash and laugh all the way to the Swiss Alps. I’ve been abused by your cops, deputies, DAs while my rights were taken by force. Wish I could trust you guys, but it seems to me, it’s every man/woman for himself these days.
    Respectfully, Jennifer, usaf veteran

  3. 3
    Patrick C. Says:

    Nobody ought to be surprised at this. The people of this country are going to get the tyranny they voted for.

    If no change can come out of an election like the one we just had, while the current president is in the middle of a major scandal and his opponent is immaculately clean-cut and presidential in every way, then you can rest assured there will be no uprising when the powers they elected come for their guns.

    The general public has all but surrendered. They’re not going to fight back, they’re going to submit until there’s nothing left worth fighting for. They’ll be kept comfortable with copious sex, drugs and welfare assistance while their real liberties are erased from memory. And then the bad times will come, and it will be too late. When everyone finally starts getting hungry, they won’t have the education to comprehend why. And so they’ll turn to the state once more with demands that they be fed and cared for.

    The good news is that the cycle always leads to collapse. It can’t *not* collapse eventually. I for one hope the collapse happens within my lifetime so that I can see some real change.

    I also think I’m not the only one with NO plans on registering anything that may/may not be in my possession. By the way Hi-cap magazines have flown off the shelves in the last couple of weeks, I somehow think there’s cause for a little bit of hope.

    (Seriously by the way, anybody who knows of a gun shop that’s not completely overwhelmed with backorders right now, let me know).

  4. 4
    Patrick C. Says:

    Jennifer – welcome to the nightmare. When “obey the orders of the President of the United States” is in direct conflict with “protect and defend the Constitution,” you have a serious crisis of conscience. And I don’t mean a crisis of what the correct answer is – only a crisis of whether or not you have the courage to accept the consequences of doing what is right.

    I don’t think you really believe there’s any visitor of this site who doesn’t take the oath seriously – (after all why would they take the time to read the articles if they didn’t)? – but if keeping it only means doing the president’s unilateral executive bidding, then we would be in no way elevated from any third-world dictator’s army.

    Even in this new politically correct military, you’ll still find a few of us left who did NOT sign up to be King Barack’s thugs, and a few more who are willing to make the transition from republic to empire more difficult than he would want.

  5. 5
    mike smith Says:

    I have a feeling we are not in Kansas anymore ToTo.

  6. 6
    Cal Says:

    Jennifer, (Sorry, Elias & all- doing it again)

    You are incorrect about there being a “conflict” between following an order from a president and the Oath(s) requirement to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION. ALL required, legally binding Oaths require the “Support and Defense of the US Constitution” – or in the case of presidents, the Preservation, Protection, and Defense of the US Constitution – not any president we may have – they are just higher-priced-with-better-provided-housing & perks temporary workers put into place to do the duties assigned by the US Constitution.

    All orders must be lawful (constitutional to be lawful in OUR nation). If a soldier carries out an unlawful order they are held accountable for their actions in a military court. Presidents can, and have, given unlawful orders and the person/people who carried it out were punished for it.

    I think you are describing this Oath: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Please notice that the TOP priority with the most words defining exactly what they must do is at the beginning: “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” and it defines the actions they MUST take regarding the US Constitution which is our legitimate government. The rest are basically lower as far as importance by lumping both following orders of the president in the same sentence with orders of officers.

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    .
    Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

    Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
    1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

    The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.
    The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

    Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

    Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

    If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

    Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

    5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

    5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

    5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

    The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

    The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.
    One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

    Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
    Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other [than] by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

    President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

    Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the 0-

    Then also realize that Presidents are held to a higher degree in the legally binding oath REQUIRED of them. They are REQUIRED to PRESERVE the US Constitution. They are REQUIRED to PROTECT the US Constitution. They are also REQUIRED to Defend it.
    Let me educate you a bit on Oaths.

    Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
    .
    Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

    Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

    Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

    Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

    Also you must realize that presidents can be traitors, as can any in the legislative and judicial branches, or those in state governments. The Oath is to protect the Document which is our government – to defend it and keep it safe so we can remain free.

    Hope this helps you, and anyone else who was unsure exactly what the Oaths mean and what they protect – our way of life.

    It is VERY important to realize that if there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are DOMESTICALLY attempting to destroy its power and authority, then why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths? Why did the framers add the word(s) “domestic” along with “foreign” in describing “enemy”, “enemies” in each Oath? They are the “domestic enemies” of the USA trying to destroy its legitimate government, the Constitution of the United States.

    “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights.”

  7. 7
    Cal Says:

    Sorry, was up all night and repeated myself in the above.

    Happy New Year all!

  8. 8
    Elias Alias Says:

    Very nicely done, CAL.

    Jennifer, here is the fine point you missed initially, but which by now you’ve probably already recognized and accepted – Any order, from any authority or source including a sitting President, which violates the Constitution, is to be refused, for all “lawful orders” are *pursuant* to the Constitution. If, for example, a President issues an un-Constitutional order, the peace officer, firefighter, or soldier is honor-bound to refuse that order. Any soldier following an unlawful order is subject to the UCMJ and liable for court martial. The Constitution is the written, willed voice of the People, and it requires of its agents an Oath which is sworn [or affirmed] to the Constitution itself, not to the government which that Constitution created.

    Salute!
    Elias Alias

  9. 9
    Churchill Says:

    Indeed, Is their a treaty banning one from building, owning and arming a/or drone-s for protection??? After all, they seem quite popular in the War on Terror. It seems that many in supposed authorative positions are hell-bent on forcing their supposed subjects/citizens and enemies into complete subjugation and eventual slavery. Terrorists (whether they be foreign or domestic) seem to be their preferred tool as is their use of armed drones in Pakistan and else-where. Currently, Children and un-armed adults will continue to be their favorite sacrificial tool as needed until they accomplish their goals. As War, assassinations, mass shootings and murder by drone will be continuous world-wide….Stay Vigilant and Stay Armed as Duty and Defense is a required obligation by all( Military or Civilian) who prefer Sovereignty, the preservation/protection of the Family Unit and individuality over Anarchy, Tyranny and any Authoritarian rule whether Domestic or foreign. Especially the United Nations and it’s Agenda 21 goals.

  10. 10
    Deborah Says:

    Patrick, I agree they did get what they voted for and more. Some will be surpised though as they only focused on the item that was important to them and not a tyranny. I doubt they even have a gun, just the gangs. We just don’t have enough people involved in voting at all. Seems we are neck and neck each time but the last two. I just saw Pres told the illegals to go apply for their citizenship if they have family here and go back to Mexico to get their visa.. That is more votes later for the democrats if we continue to vote. We need to stop letting people in as they come for the wrong reasons. There are many more of us that have guns than not here and organized back up is better than being picked off unsuspectedly by a door to door knock. I bought a CB I have to install and soon to get scanner. I want to know what is happening miles away. I want truckers to be talking. I saw where large cities would be picked off sections at a time. Well I haven’t been camping in a very long time out in woods so I need to start picking my spot till the worse blows over. I can’t imaging myself even trying to get to work everyday, may be no work left to go to. Living like the people of Isreal, scares me to think about. I have no military training, had a kid instead, but I am a natural survivalist as long as I have canned goods.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148