April 8th, 2013

Claire Wolfe Inspects the UN’s Arms Treaty Threat


-

BackwoodsHomeMagazine_crop

-

-

This article is a good over-view on the UN’s Small Arms Treaty, with a good general understanding for those who have not studied deeply into the treaty. It was written by Claire Wolfe for Backwoods Home Magazine. Please read the whole article at the original site, and if you’re not already familiar with Backwoods Home Magazine, do take a moment to look around while there:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe130404.html

In addition to writing for Backwoods Home Magazine, Claire Wolfe writes for  S.W.A.T. Magazine. She has published wonderful classics for the liberty movement, including “101 Things To Do Til The Revolution”“Don’t Shoot The Bastards Yet”; and “The Freedom Outlaw’s Handbook“. For her directory of books at Amazon dot com, click <here>

Claire Wolfe’s latest article is right on target for Oath Keepers’ readership. Here is a goodly part of it  -

-

Can the U.N. Ban America’s Guns?

The rumor flashed across the Internet last winter: the Obama administration is going to use a United Nations arms treaty to get around the Second Amendment and ban all guns.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the renewed push for “gun safety” (the current politically correct term) the rumor was all too believable. But was it true?

At the time the panic started, the answer was “no.” The U.N. had been working on an anti-gun treaty for years but had never actually produced a result. Last fall, Obama gave his support to the next step of the process. That was enough to set the rumor mill churning.

But as of April 2, 2013, the long-rumored treaty finally exists. All Second Amendment supporters should be aware of it — but need not panic. It’s dangerous of course. The Obama administration and long-time anti-gunners in the Senate would love to use it to curtail firearms. But whether this treaty will ever affect U.S. gun owners is up to us.

What’s the treaty really about?

The Arms Trade Treaty, or the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, as it’s variously known, has been in planning stages since 2001. The U.N. general assembly formally endorsed the idea of creating of a treaty in 2006. A conference to come up with final, agreeable terms fell apart in July 2012. A second special conference in March 2013 also fell apart after some remarkably juvenile squabbling. However, this time the negotiations didn’t collapse until the final day — at which point representatives from UN countries had finished drafting a treaty.

Unable to get the unanimous vote from all 193 member nations required at the conference, treaty supporters took the draft to the full General Assembly of the UN, where it could pass on a simple majority vote. On Tuesday, April 2, it happened. The treaty received 154 “yes” votes, three “nos,” and 23 abstentious.

The United States (a sponsor of the treaty) voted in favor.

It’s still not time to panic. But it’s certainly time to go on alert.

Before the treaty can take effect, several things have to happen:

  • 50 UN member nations have to ratify it
  • 90 days have to pass after that before anyone at all is bound by it
  • Even then, the treaty binds only those nations that have ratified it

The Obama administration cannot legally just impose the treaty on Americans. First, 2/3 of the U.S. Senate must vote to ratify it — and that is going to be a tough hurdle to get over. Second, even after Newtown, politicians are aware that Americans don’t submit easily to anti-gunnery — and that we’re likely to punish those who vote against the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Third, the Republican party has finally shown signs of growing a spine where firearms are concerned. Very few Republicans would be likely to vote for the treaty, and some (especially the Young Turks led by Rand Paul) would fight hard against it.

Still, the political climate can change overnight and politicians are experts at doing things behind our collective backs (as they did when a coalition of four R & D senators covertly and not-strictly lawfully passed the Brady Bill when no one was looking).

We must never allow this treaty to be imposed on us. Its terms have frightening implications, not only for American gun owners, but for anyone anywhere who ever has to fight tyrants.

But what’s in this treaty that we need to be so leery of? After all, supporters claim that the treaty’s only aim is to better regulate the import and export of these arms between countries to ensure that weapons don’t get into the hands of pirates, warlords, drug cartels, and other organized forces that terrorize innocents. In fact, there’s language in the treaty that specifically says it isn’t supposed to ban guns or override any country’s own laws.

However, it doesn’t take a genius to see straight through this claim. First, illicit trade is by definition illicit. Criminals ignore laws. They ignore treaties. Look at international drug smuggling. Making import/export illegal has done nothing but attract ever more ruthless and clever criminals who have built global enterprises strong enough to challenge (or utterly corrupt) governments. The same will happen with weapons. Criminals will get weapons by raiding military depots, by smuggling, by black-market trading, through bribery, by killing police and soldiers, or in dozens of other ways.

In fact, that’s already how most bandits, drug lords, and warlords get their weaponry. In 2012 a study from Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution concluded that very few arms were coming to bad guys through the import/export trade. Instead they were getting weapons through the “the diversion or misuse of officially authorized transfers” and other forms of theft. No treaty will prevent that; a treaty will only interfere with those who obey laws.

Also, the U.N.’s view has always been that government control of trade is inherently good and trade that is not directly controlled by government is always bad. Any international arms sales not explicitly authorized by governments would be illegal. A country could be under the thumb of a monstrous dictator, but according to the U.N. it’s a good thing for that dictator to be able to prevent his opponents from arming themselves. Had an arms treaty been in effect in the 1930s and 1940s, the United Nations would have sided with Hitler over his disarmed victims.

Those are the broad outlines. And they’re bad enough. But for Americans, there is an even more pervasive danger. According to the UK newspaper, The Guardian:

The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons but requires countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It covers battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light weapons. (Emphasis Claire Wolfe)

Countries are required to have mechanisms in place “to prevent conventional weapons reaching the black market.”

In other words, if the U.S. Senate ratifies and Barack Obama (or any future president) signs this treaty, the United States government will be required to register and track every sale or other transfer of every firearm, component, and (presumably) round of ammunition ever sold in the country. There is simply no other way even to pretend to be meeting the requirements of the treaty. Only when every sale is tracked can a government claim it’s trying to “prevent” weapons from reaching the “blackmarket.”

Furthermore, if the U.S. failed to set up these draconian registration and tracking methods….(snip)

-

Please read whole article at Backwoods Home Magazine -

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/wolfe130404.html




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.

11 Responses to “Claire Wolfe Inspects the UN’s Arms Treaty Threat”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    mike smith Says:

    I believe as of today the vote in the senate is 54 against and 46(all Democrats)for it. One democrat in Montana voted for it. but as Claire Wolfe said, you never know these days who will be bribed, coerced or play a fake first run and change their vote on Jun 3rd. If this happens 90 days after will be probably one of the worst days in U.S. history. I have been praying with some other Christian brothers that the Lord would have mercy on this country, but I think as a unit all patriots should be on their knees to God.

  2. 2
    Linda Says:

    Hi Shorty/ Elias,
    What does Stewart say about this?
    Why did the Founding Fathers include any backdoor in the Constitution that would allow a President to make a treaty with a foreign power, or powers, that could override our Bill of Rights, our 2A rights and our ability to live as a free people?
    We need expert advice from Stewart to understand our position, and how this could be, if it is correct as stated. Can the UN really ban guns in the USA? What is our best response? IF the UN can ban guns in the USA, and, If we are betrayed so completely by the upper echelons of our
    government that they meet all the requirements outlined in her article, what can we do? Is this truly legal? What is our lawful response?

    Thank You, Linda

    Linda

  3. 3
    Shorty Dawkins Says:

    Here is my take on the UN Arms Treaty.

    As I see it, it matters not what the UN Treaty says. What matters is what the Constitution says. As has been ruled by the Supreme Court in case after case, any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. But it is not the Supreme Court that ultimately decides whether a law, or treaty, is null and void. The States can decide through Nullification that something is repugnant to the Constitution, and, as shown in the Nuremberg Trials, it is we, the people, who must determine if it is null and void, for it is we who will be held responsible for our actions based upon our own determination.

    If it is we, as individuals, who must ultimately make a determination as to the validity, or lawfulness, of any action, whether law, treaty, or regulation, proposed by the Government, at any level, that was created to act in accordance with the contract that we call the Constitution, we must look at the Contract itself.

    If the Nuremberg trials showed us anything, it is that we, as individuals, are the supreme arbiters of what the Constitution means, just as in any contract. It is for us to make a moral determination of the contract we have agreed to. It is not merely those who take a formal Oath to decide. We either agree to abide by the Constitution, the Contract, or we withdraw our consent. Any withdrawal of consent must be for cause. It is not a whim that governs our actions, but a moral conviction that the terms of the Contract we have entered into have been breached, justifying our withdrawal of consent. There is no escaping this duty. Either we consent, or we don’t. There is no safe middle ground.

    Concerning the UN Arms Treaty, it is our duty to make a determination as to whether the terms of said treaty are in accordance with the Constitution. Claire Wolfe, in her article states:

    “Let’s say that the worst happens. The Senate and the president impose its terms on the United States. Can a treaty really override the Second Amendment?

    Unfortunately, that’s a fuzzy area.

    Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states in part, “…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
    But what happens if a treaty conflicts with something in the Constitution?”

    I’m not sure why Claire calls this a fuzzy area. The Constitution clearly states that the Treaties made under the Authority of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Where in the Constitution does it grant the President, Senate, or any part of the Government the Authority to override the Contract? Any treaty, or law, passed that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void; period. The President and Senate, in this case, lack the Authority to agree to a Treaty that is in contradiction with the Constitution.

    If we, the people who have consented to live under the authority of the Constitution, (whether we have taken a formal Oath, or not), are thereby obligated to live within its confines, then we must make our own moral determination as to the limits of those confines as we understand them. It is for us to then make a personal stand, not matter the consequences, just as a soldier in battle places his life on the line, so must we in our daily lives take a stand and put ourselves in peril, if need be. To live a life that is moral, we can not do less.

  4. 4
    Linda Says:

    Hi Shorty, Thank you for your answer. This issue still seems a bit fuzzy to me for this reason:
    First, in Article 6 it says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.
    Next it states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.
    I believe that the answer hinges on the definition of the word “treaty”
    Black’s Law says there are two kinds of treaties: international law Treaties, and private law treaties. (I have copied in the quote below.)
    The question here is, is the Constitution referring to the use of the term “treaty” as used in international law, or is it using the term “treaty” as it is used in private law? I believe this is the part that is fuzzy, unless it is clarified elsewhere. It seems more intuitively logical that the Constitution is using the term as used in international law, but I am not a lawyer and terms seem to be endlessly debated, so???
    Black’s Law says (my emphasis is added by underlining):
    In international law. An agreement between two or more independent states. Brande. An
    agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally
    signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several
    sovereigns or the supreme power of each state. Webster; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5
    Pet. 00, 8 L. Ed. 25; Edye v. Robertson, 112 U. S. 5S0, 5 Sup. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798;
    Holmes v. Jennison. 14 Pet. 571, 10 L. Ed. 579; U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 7 Sup.
    Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425; Ex parte Ortiz (C. C.) 100 Fed. 902.

    IF the Constitution is primarily using the term “treaty” to mean an agreement between two or more independent states, or an agreement between two or more nations of sovereigns, which must be signed by properly authorized commissioners, and then ratified by the several sovereigns of the supreme power of each state, then it might be confusing. Although we have previously agreed that the Constitution is not to be interpreted, this section seems confusing.
    For example: We are a nation of sovereigns, who are experiencing an unprecedented push right now (by Obama et al) to get his kind of gun legislation into place. In so doing, he has creatively reinterpreted nearly every rule in the book, in order to give him the authority to do whatever he wants; So far he seems to be getting away with it; That, in and of itself, is shocking and confusing. If the sovereign powers of each state must be party to the treaty and ratify it, would we fare any better than if Obama just signs another one of those aaaagggghhh### executive orders of his? (By this I mean that the State Leaders are not very protective of our gun rights either. Moreover, Obama seems quite capable of just signing another EO under cover of night, as he has repeatedly done already, so???)
    Again, the GOA and the NRA and so forth are shouting pretty loudly that anyone who votes for that gun-seizure/power-grab-law will be out of office next term, but if they are already bought and paid for by the man who prints money at will, then what??? Even the Republican Party seems ambivalent and completely lazy about gun control issues. IF the Senate betrays us again, we won’t have any real government left after Obama gets done with his term (if he ever does step down). Mike said that the vote is currently 54 (against- 46 (in favor). Those numbers are a real shock to me; the race is too close.
    I think Mike has a really good point. He said, If this happens 90 days after will be probably one of the worst days in U.S. history. I have been praying with some other Christian brothers that the Lord would have mercy on this country, but I think as a unit all patriots should be on their knees to God.
    What I am trying to say is that the Assassin in Chief, the Senate and the Congress are killing our country, and this vote seems awfully close when we are down to the wire. Moreover, I think Obama is quite capable of running roughshod over our Constitution.

    Black’s Law says:
    In private law, “treaty” signifies the discussion of terms which immediately precedes the conclusion of a contract or other transaction. A warranty on the sale of goods, to be valid, must be made during the “treaty” preceding the sale. Chit. Cont. 419; Sweet.

    I just quoted this last bit because (although I don’t think it applies to this specific problem) I wanted to be thorough. 

    Thanks Shorty! Good work, as usual.
    Yes, Mike- I am praying with you. Count me in. Linda

  5. 5
    Cal Says:

    @ Linda, “Next it states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.”

    You are incorrect. It says that they ALL must be in “pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

    Obama, and others, have tried to say whatever treaty they make with the UN is legal. That is not so. It is ONLY lawful if it follows the US Constitution.

    Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective CONSTITUTIONAL processes.” (caps are mine)

    All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

    November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:
    The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

    Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
    Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are NOT rendered constitutional by repetition.

    In the Federal Government, in order for an official to take office, he or she must first take the oath of office. The official reciting the oath swears an allegiance to uphold the Constitution.
    The Constitution only specifies an oath of office for the President; however, Article VI of the Constitution states that other officials, including members of Congress, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution.”

    Bound is a legal term. They solemnly (another legal term) swear. Remember they are LAWFULLY REQUIRED (another legal term) to take the oath.

    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: “Consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.”

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

    Contract: “An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.”

    The Framers placed the requirement for “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” (Fed 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

    All of the lawful bindings on those who serve require them to: Presidents – held to a higher standard: “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the US Constitution”. Everyone else is REQUIRED to: “Support and Defend the US Constitution” in EVERYTHING they do while serving.

  6. 6
    Linda Says:

    Hi Cal,
    Well, if I am wrong, then I will take the blame. However, I copied into my email what the online version of Black’s Law says. I didn’t make it up or mis-write it. I just copied what it says.
    I hope you are right, but I will just have to dig deeper to see.

    Thanks. Linda

  7. 7
    Darin Bowers Says:

    Hillary IS THE SMALL ARMS TREATY.

    I believe this was her very mandate from Barry as the Secretary of State.

    The Small Arms treaty can suck on my AR-15.
    (and the rest of my Liberty protection devices)

    Sincerely,
    -Tyranny Eradicator

  8. 8
    Heyoka Says:

    Very Good stuff on traties. I ahve some very heavy leagal background and knowledge. I would caution this. If you use a Blacks remember they have been reeducating us for years. Black’s 4th Edition is the very last one I would trust I use that and a Boviers that was reprinetd from back in the days.

    Congress cannot define words. They must use the Oxford Distionary of the English Language to define terms.

    Last but not least there is a 3 Pound artillery Piece at Minute Man Park in Concord. If anyone is up ther please please please get photos of the piece. It was one of two returned to several citizens of Boston by Order of the United States in 1788. It emphatically states that the gun and it brother were owned by several citizens of Boston and that the other two were owned by the Government of Massachusetts and were captured by the enemy. The inscription is on the gun. This kills once and for all the gun grabbers complaint about military type weapons. The evidence is clear and without doubt but do get photos videos and affidavits and brochures from the park to document the piece. I am in Alaska and cannot make it on the 19th.

    God Bless

  9. 9
    csaaphill Says:

    Obama’s has already teken all this into account, for on March 8th he signed into law that does exactly waht the small arms treaty does. This Executive order has the very same language as the small arms treaty. Don’t beleive me go look at this site The American Presidency project. I’ts a web site that allows you to see a list of executive orders. This order gives Eric holder pretty much unlimited power in dealing with arms trade. It also has language as World peace etc.. Guess were for that, but not at the price of Liberty.

  10. 10
    scott bottorff Says:

    TO the nobile and honrable It is important to note difference’s Between Gen Washington, the minutemen and the contenintal army,Leanidas and the spartens were not greeks nor were they spartens,They were betrayed,and three they lost. Gen Washington, the minutemen and the contenintal army prevaled against their enemys. Greindruggan 1775, Donnfuegonvithmein

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