RAND PAUL JUST SAYS "NO" TO THE UN
Groups like the these have a history of trying to destroy our sovereignty and are the same kinds of organizations that joined the UN in trying to coerce the United States into tossing our Constitution and joining the UN sponsored International Criminal Court in the early 1990’s. Although Bill Clinton signed off on this Treaty, he refused to recommend the International Court Treaty to the Senate. George W. Bush fought this and other anti freedom UN treaties outright by appointing the tenacious Ambassador John Bolton to the UN. These anti gun rights groups and their affiliates say that Nation States can and do try anyone for crimes committed within their territory, so why can they not delegate that right to an international court?
The answer is that the present international states that bow down to this International Court do not have our hard fought for Constitution and Bill of Rights that do not allow delegation such as this. Simple and straightforward enough, right? Well, no.
The same type of global thinking apparently extends to the current attack and proposed handing off of our guaranteed firearms rights to an international governing body like the United Nations. To that, we just say, NO.
The UN failed in the Treaty efforts to over ride and destroy our 4th Amendment “Due Process” rights. Try as hard as they might, they could not destroy our 6th Amendment rights to:
A. a speedy and public trial by an impartial United States Court and jury;
B. our right to confront accusers,
C. the right to have the trial conducted in the jurisdiction where the crime allegedly occurred in the U.S.;
C. the right to have the trial conducted in the jurisdiction where the crime allegedly occurred in the U.S.;
D. the right put on a defense and present evidence and to require the State to hand over exculpatory evidence to the defendant;
E, the right to exclude evidence not obtained legally through proper 4th Amendment procedures;
F. the right not to testify against yourself;
G. the right to counsel of your choice;
H. the right to participate in selecting a jury;
I. the right to have a Court's decision reviewed by a higher appeals court;
J. the right against double jeopardy in trials, among other guaranteed rights.
I. the right to have a Court's decision reviewed by a higher appeals court;
J. the right against double jeopardy in trials, among other guaranteed rights.
Now, they are attacking other guaranteed Constitutional Rights. Based on their history of previous attacks on our Constitutional sovereignty and freedoms, these groups are trying once again to gut our Constitution by attacking the Second Amendment this time. People who work for the UN and groups like these will not be able to justify the continued existence of their jobs unless they remain on the attack against our freedoms. That is their job, to do exactly that. Attack.
Even if this Treaty would only apply to international transfers of firearms, and not yet apply to individual country's homeland laws as the UN and anti gun organizations claim, or supposedly does not yet specifically ban semi automatic firearms, this is not just like a door to door salesman's foot in the door for gun control. It is a hobnailed jackboot kicked right through the door. Gun control attempts often comes in incremental steps. Each successful step makes the next step much easier and more acceptable. Successful attempts are good for fundraising contributions too.
The US was against this latest anti gun treaty until 2009, when Barack Obama ordered Hillary Clinton and the State Department to be "open" to discussions on this Treaty. These discussions and "Fast and Furious" may well be part of the “Under the Radar” gun control efforts that Obama assured Sarah Brady of the Brady handgun rights gun control group were going on.
Senator Rand Paul believes that the UN now seeks to destroy our Second Amendment. He expressed that view in a mailing that he recently to his constituents and others entitled, “Stop The UN Gun Ban.”
He said, “Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE the United States to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.” 1.
Here is a very important point. At the very least, this Treaty would ban firearms from other countries to distributors such as Century Arms here in the U.S. It would also stop importation of WASR AK47 variants, WWII P38 Pistols, Walther P1 9mm pistols, Saiga 12 gauge shotguns, M91/30 vintage rifles, G3 20 round .308 magazines, UZI carbines, 7.62X39, 5.56X45, and 7.62X54 ammunition.
Obama has already recently forbid Hillary Clinton from allowing the return and sale to citizens here of vintage M1 Garands loaned to the Republic of Korea by us. Obama doesn't like firearms coming into the United States, and would probably push for ratification of this Treaty to please his anti gun rights constituency.
The GAPW denies everything Senator Paul Says.
In a blog this week, they said, “All of these assumptions are plain wrong. Senator Paul and his supporters clearly do not understand the goals, provisions, and limitations of the proposed ATT. From the outset, negotiations with respect to an ATT are focused exclusively on international transfers of conventional weapons between member states of the UN and have nothing to do with individual citizens, private ownership, or the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Documents from the ATT preparatory committees have expressly disclaimed any intention to interfere with the right of states to self defense as well as national regulation of firearms within its own territory. Furthermore, all 193 member states as a unit, including many that are still highly skeptical of an ATT, would never allow a treaty to be penned that would encroach on such basic rights of sovereignty.
The original General Assembly resolution that called for negotiations to begin on an ATT explicitly and exclusively calls for ‘common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms’ without mentioning, even once, internal domestic policy regarding gun ownership or confiscation, destruction, or limitation on civilian firearms. The standards refer to criteria and parameters regarding transfers of weapons from one state (government) to another. Moreover, the most recent paper from Chairman of the ATT negotiating process, Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina, from July 2011 recognizes the sovereign right of states to regulate internal transfers including ‘national constitutional protections on private ownership.’ As such, there is zero potential for an ATT to affect US domestic licensing laws or civilian firearms possession let alone give anyone the authority (certainly no imaginary UN enforcing squad) to confiscate and destroy civilian firearms.
As for the contention that the ATT will ban the sale, trade, and ownership of semi-automatic weapons is also, not surprisingly, entirely false. Firstly, the ATT explicitly refers to large conventional weapons used for military purposes, which include: tanks, military vehicles, military aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, missile systems, and military helicopters among others– with no mention of rifles whatsoever. Small arms and light weapons (SALWs) are not currently accepted by all UN member states as part of the scope of the ATT. The question as to whether they will be included under the scope of the treaty is still very much up in the air. Secondly, even if SALWs were to be included under the scope of the ATT, private ownership of such weapons is entirely unaffected as the ATT deals only with the regulation of state-to-state transfers.
Lastly, concern over an ‘international gun registry’ is entirely unfounded. None of the proposals tabled and considered throughout the ATT negotiating process contemplate creation of any such enforcement bureaucracy. The US delegation has made clear its position that oversight of the ATT’s provisions must remain under the control of national governments and should not be subject to international scrutiny as US law already provides for comprehensive regulation of international arms transfers. Many other states agree. As the ATT process is a consensus-driven one, all member states will have to come to agreement before any treaty will be accepted making acceptance of any ‘international policing unit’ utterly impossible… Advocates of a robust ATT are fighting for strong humanitarian language regarding arms transfers in order to prevent illicit diversion to terrorists, criminals, and other human rights abusers and ultimately limit human suffering.” 2.
Who do you believe? Who would you trust to do the right thing?
1. “Stop the UN Gun Ban…A message from Senator Rand Paul”
No comments:
Post a Comment