Obama Supports UN Arms Treaty

© Miri WTPOTUS April 2, 2013

The United Nations has passed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), with the support of the Obama administration, but without the support of Iran, North Korea, and Syria.  Twenty-three countries abstained from the vote.

The Washington Times reports:

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes. …

American gun rights activists, though, insist 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. 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.

Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a non-binding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

The Washington Times story further states: [emphasis added to quotes]

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that “we are pleased to join with the consensus” on the treaty, adding that before the White House gets to planning on how to get it through the Senate, it will first review and assess the language of the treaty itself.

Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured Mr. Obama to support the treaty, and Amnesty International hailed Tuesday’s vote.

Like Obamacare, do they have to read the treaty to find out what’s in it, after already supporting it at the U.N.?  Next Obama will plan “how to get it through the Senate.”

This news comes on the heels of reports that legislators, mostly Democrats, in various states propose some alarming and, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, mostly unconstitutional gun control laws:

In Connecticut, proposals include:

—Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines;

—Background checks for private gun sales;

—New registry for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets;

—Statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, which lawmakers said is the nation’s first;

—Immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales;

—Expansion of Connecticut’s assault weapons ban;

—Safety training and other requirements to buy any rifle, shotgun or ammunition;

—Increases minimum age eligibility for purchase of some semi-automatic rifles to 21;

— Expands requirements for safe storage of firearms;

— Increases penalties for firearms trafficking and illegal possession offenses.

In California:

Democratic lawmakers are pushing like never before to regulate or tax ammunition sales. …

“It’s a way to red-tape the right to bear arms to death,” said Chuck Michel, the California Rifle and Pistol Association’s attorney, promising to sue if any such bills pass. “It’s all part of a campaign of shame, the fight to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to make the choice to have a firearm for self-defense.” …

[One] bill would require all ammo dealers to be licensed and all ammo buyers to provide identification information that would go to a state registry. …  Another bill … would require a background check and an estimated $50 fee for a one-year permit to buy ammunition. …

[A] 10 percent tax on ammunition to fund crime prevention — might merge with another lawmaker’s proposed nickel-per-round tax to fund mental-health screening for children. …

California’s 2009 law requiring dealers to record all handgun ammunition sales remains in limbo after an appeals court ruled that it’s too ambiguous because some rounds can be used both in handguns and rifles. The bills now pending would affect all ammunition.

Ammo rights are similarly infringed upon in other parts of the country:

Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the District of Columbia now require some sort of license to buy ammunition. New York passed a law in January requiring background checks for ammo purchases, but it hasn’t taken effect yet.

That same story reports that at the national level:

[T]he Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013 … [w]ould require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, require licensing of ammunition dealers and reporting of bulk purchases of ammunition. …

[T]he Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013 … [w]ould require an instant background check for the purchase of ammunition and would restore pre-1986 requirements that sellers track their inventory and keep records of their customers. Purchases of 1,000 rounds or more, or thefts of large amounts of ammunition, would have to be reported to law enforcement.

Another story reports that

a contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. … [The bill] requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm. It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect. … The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.

Quite obviously, they’re laying the groundwork for making gun owners liable for any crimes committed by those who steal their guns. Once liability is established and lawyers get involved, big settlements and the soaring cost of gun owners insurance will make owning a gun too expensive for most Americans.  Similarly, taxes and licensing fees will make exercising their right to keep and bear arms that much more onerous.

Voluntary (actually involuntary) backdoor civilian disarmament, by any means necessary.

Obviously, as well, is that all of these proposals are unconstitutional, as Judge Napolitano said this morning on the Jamie Allman Show in St. Louis.  Nobody can be required to buy insurance as the price for exercising a constitutional right. 

Proponents compare this proposal to insurance requirements for automobile ownership; yet there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that specifically protects automobile ownership.  The Second Amendment exists to protect our right to keep and bear arms:  that right “shall not be infringed.”

Every one of these proposals “infringe” upon the right to keep and bear arms. Coming on the heels of the U.N.’s ATT, these AMMUNITION control proposals raise many red flags.  No doubt, we shall soon hear ourselves labeled conspiracy theorists, once again; but by now we’re used to that.  Tell me that THIS is nothing more than yet another coincidence:

Shortages resulting from an unprecedented demand for ammunition by federal agencies and the civilian market are causing some police departments to look at cutting back training …

One source the civilian market particularly looks at is for cartridge casings, and in a time of high demand, having them available for reloading ammunition becomes a significant interest. One of the prime suppliers for expended brass is the military, so their compliance with appropriations requirements and public law becomes a matter of heightened public interest.

Thinking that compliance issues over unauthorized destruction rather than resale of brass had been resolved back in 2009 and again in 2010, tips that the practice was ongoing and continuing resulted in a special Gun Rights Examiner investigative report in January about reports of destruction at Fort Drum in New York, but not in clarification from responsible authorities. …

The author goes on to report that our government (apparently against military policies, “appropriations and public law requirements”) uses a machine called a “deformer” to deliberately make spent ammo “unserviceable” so that it cannot be sold on the civilian market for reloading.

This is an end run around the spirit, if not the letter of, the law.  A clause in the law allows them to not sell spent ammo for reloading if it’s “unserviceable” or “unsafe”.  Deliberately deforming the shells makes them unserviceable.

The author attempted to get answers to specific questions, but was stonewalled or ignored, at first. Recently the author received a memo indicating that policies were changed in June of 2011.  The author’s sums up:

“DoD will dispose of ESACC [expended small arms cartridge cases] as quickly and effectively as practical, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and DoD guidance.”Of relevance, it also states “The DoD will not expend resources to determine whether ESACC are serviceable for non-military purposes. [After making them unserviceable?]“The DoD will continue to make available a reasonable portion of the ESACC supply intact for such sale,” the guidelines continue, albeit not defining how “reasonable” is determined, “with the goal of optimizing the receipt and return of sales proceeds.”The guidelines also specify the guidelines apply to the continental United States, “to avoid significant expenditures in transporting ESACC.”

In answer to a question raised about brass destruction … the guidelines “will not impair the operation of QRP [qualified recycling program] at military installations within CONUS [contiguous US] that rely on direct sales of ESACC to support their recycling program or Morale, Welfare and recreation program. Such installations and activities may continue to crush, shred, deform or otherwise demilitarize ESACC prior to direct sale.”

These specifics directly address original questions posed by Gun Rights Examiner that were sidestepped when for-the-record comments were requested, and would indicate the direction the installations are following comes straight from the Pentagon. Whether that squares with the spirit and intent of public law and appropriations requirements, and what higher-level directives or understandings, if any (as well as past precedents), shaped the 2011 guidance memorandum under which the bases are operating, are new questions to be explored.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but we have a government that seems to be deliberately creating a shortage of ammunition by entering into contracts to purchase as many as two billion rounds of civilian, not military, ammunition.  Allegedly, they plan to use this ammo for DHS and border patrol training, although “Big Sis” Janet Napolitano dodges and weaves when asked by our representatives why the DHS is stockpiling ammunition.  Now we see that, although the law seems to require the military to sell spent shell casings on the open market for reloading, the military deliberately deforms cartridge cases, so that they don’t have to sell to them to civilians, thus making ammunition that much scarcer.

This is a full court press to disarm the People and to do away with our Second Amendment rights, without amending the Constitution.  While ultimately the Supreme Court MAY strike down these laws (should they make it through the legislatures) in the meantime, the Obama administration will run the clock–building that database and disarming the People, one gun at a time.  If they can’t get the guns, however, they can defang them by making ammunition impossible to obtain; or they will make it too expensive for anyone except rich Hollywood celebrities to own guns.  Will our Congress allow these laws to pass?

The leftists are not going to stop. The proponents of these unconstitutional, infringing laws admit that these are simply small steps, INCREMENTAL steps.  They make no bones about admitting that their ultimate goal is to totally disarm the American people.

#####