• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Can the U.N. Grab Americans' Guns?

    For much of the past two weeks, I’ve been attending the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty conference in New York and blogging on the craziness of Turtle Bay. A number of comments on my blogs—and many external commentators—have raised the question of whether the ATT is, pure and simple, a “gun grab” treaty.

    Let’s start with three basic points:

    1. No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities.
    2. The U.N. and many of its member states are hostile to the private ownership of firearms.
    3. The U.S. is exceptional: It is one of the few nations that has a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment.

    Thus, the default U.N. tendency—partly out of malevolence, partly out of ignorance—is to act in ways contrary to the Second Amendment, and the fundamental job of the U.S. at the U.N. is to try to stop bad things from happening. The alternative of completely quitting the entire U.N. is appealing but unwise, because the U.N. would keep doing things that would affect the U.S. even if we were not in it.

    The U.N. is aware of the political dangers of appearing to stomp openly on the Second Amendment. It uses code words; it runs closed meetings—a veteran of the process tells me that meetings were normally open until the National Rifle Association began showing up at them—and, above all, it plays a long game. A big problem with talking about the ATT as a “gun grab” treaty is that the U.N. works by taking slices: when it comes to the U.N., being outraged by one development is no substitute for focusing on how the slices pile up over time.

    I don’t give much too much credit to the U.S. for stating as a red line that it will uphold the Second Amendment, because that raises the question of what relevant activities are (as the State Department puts it in its red line) “permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.” Simply backing the Second Amendment is good, but it is better to spell out—as Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) did at Heritage recently—exactly what rights and activities you believe the Second Amendment protects. Only in that way does a promise to uphold the Second Amendment carry the full weight that it deserves.

    So what are the domestic concerns posed by the ATT? Four are important.

    1. Transfer requirements. First, there are specific textual requirements. The most recent draft text states, for example, that the ATT will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then goes on to define “international transfers” as “the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.”

    Does this mean that any transfers, including domestic ones, count as international and are thus subject to the treaty’s provisions? There are similar concerns related to the potential reporting requirements of the treaty and thus to the possible creation of a U.N.-based gun registry. If it is to be true to its published red lines, the U.S. cannot accept any of this.

    1. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.
    2. Further review of the rules. This is not the end of the process. The ATT will be elaborated at review conferences, where the U.S. goal is to develop “best practices” for its implementation. Similarly, if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT.
    3. Constitutional interpretation. Finally, the ATT is part of a process that will inspire judges and legal theorists who believe that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted in light of transnational norms. This is the most important problem of all, though it is broader than the ATT.

    Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs” are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.” On the other hand, the ATT should raise concerns beyond the Second Amendment. Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA) recently led 130 of his colleagues in expressing a range of concerns about the ATT to the Administration.

    It makes sense to balance legitimate expressions of concern for the Second Amendment with concerns on economic, foreign policy, and national security grounds. There’s enough to dislike about the ATT to keep everyone busy.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    127 Responses to Can the U.N. Grab Americans' Guns?

    1. blained13 says:

      They have been working on this for years, if Clinton signs this it will prove Obama is against private gun ownership. To have the UN decide what the people of any country's right is to gun ownership is absurd. I still couldn't imagine that it could be ratified in the Senate but you never know.

      • Ron johnson says:

        Course Oblahma is against private gun ownership. Except waivers of course for the ideologically correct

        • Glenn Bergen says:

          To wit "Operation Fast and Furious", the DOJ armed known criminal elements of the Mexican Drug Cartel. The ATT also has compensation for "victims rights" for violating the treaty. So the question becomes, if the ATT were in force and the US Gov't decided to play "cowboy" at the expense of another country, is the US Gov't responsible for that countries victims? So, who would pay? The US Gov't? I'm not in the business of rewarding "bad" behavior; so the federal gov't, collectivelt, would have to pony up between All agencies the compensatory damages. No raising taxes to offset these mistakes. Take it on the chin, like a man.

      • steve sarasky says:

        it will not my Sen Lamar Alexander R-TN replied to my email 58 are against enough to stop the socialist from disarming us he also said it would be a uphill battle for those who want this treaty there was a case in 57that went to the supreme court the court ruled no treaty can over ride the Constitution

      • Keith Clark says:

        That would be the same Senate that today will not allow a vote on getting rid of Obamacare after the House passed it?

      • CJ1944 says:

        He already said he believes no one should be allowed to have a gun and that private ownership of property should not be allowed…several years ago in an interview with NPR.

      • Rob says:

        Obamacare got pass by the Senate. The US is really looking alot like Rome.

      • Paul Erwin says:

        Problem is with this UN small arms treaty and the vienna treaty signed in 1961 GIVES the UN power to disarm ALL AMERICANS.UN troops are made up of terrorist countries that want ALL AMERICANS DEAD.When hillary clinton and obama sign this treaty they will be responsible for thousands of dead Americans who will have fought and resisted these troops to the death for their freedom and the protection of their families and loved ones,we will NOT GIVE UP without a fight.The only way to defeat this problem is to VOTE OBAMA OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE,TAKE OVER THE SENATE AND KEEP CONGRESS.Hillary clinton,harry reid,janet napolitano and eric holder will also have to go to TAKE BACK THIS GREAT COUNTRY.Is socialism really what America wants,another greece.

      • rich says:

        With radicals like Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, Menendez, who are rabid anti 2nd amendment rights, anything is possible. Since the demolibs have a majority, we never know what could happen…..even if they need 67 votes. They sell deals, and even Lautenberg lied to me how the ATT plan does not do anything to American gun ownership. THEY LIE DIRECTLY TO ANYBODY. These people are psychotic with their power, completely bent on controlling and removing "individual " rights for collective control.

    2. Bobbie says:

      can't play dumb when played by stupid!!

    3. Lew Puller says:

      The UN is going to push this through and Obama would support it (remember Fast and Furious?) The thing that concerns me is the Senate. If they ratify it, things will get that much more sketchy with out Second Amendment rights here at home… We need to force the Senate to stand against this treaty. Blast email every member here: http://www.1cp.net/promo/ac

      • lmt says:

        You do realize Fast and Furious started with Bush right! Nothing the UN does can change the US constitution. This effects people selling guns to terrorist and violent groups not American hunters and gun enthusiast. Although it might be nice if there were less deaths by gun in America. More follow through on regulations and protection against people who get Ak 47 and guns into America to use in Gang wars and hate violence.

        • Bobbie says:

          if it was started by bush the name wouldn't have changed. Why mislead!? Obama had the mind to continue it even as the facts under obama became horrifically questionable with no one holding accountability to their positions. Once the government or u n has control over a gun law, this isn't going to only effect people selling guns to terrorist and violent groups without effecting or eliminating every law abiding gun owner. And now we know government in control are the instigators of these murderous gun crimes in effort to incriminate the only personal defense by law, we have. If Obama is going to be this traitorous with America(ns) alone, he'll give right into the hands of the U.N. His work and considerations has nothing to do with bettering Americans freedom and independence from government dependency/him…
          If punishment to crimes were better enforced and more harsh, there would be less gangs and deaths by gun in America!

          • William says:

            Yes he started a similar program, but the big difference is that the had trackers put on those guns so they could see where they went to, and when the Bush administration found out that they stopped putting the tracking chips on the guns the shut the program down, so there is a big difference in the programs.

        • Robert says:

          Wrong, Imt! Stop being such a libtard. Bush's program ended with Bush. Fast and Furious is all Obama/Holder's doing! As far as dismissing the UN, DON"T! There are NO deaths by guns in America! There are too many deaths caused by punks using firearms. Get that through your head…a firearm cannot "do" anything! It is a machine, a tool. Gangs are the big problem..so is the liberal attitude, the liberal press, and the liberal teachers in the US. We so need to get the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN. Stop trying to spew lies, Imt…grow up.

      • Paul Erwin says:

        This small arms treaty combined with the vienna treaty signed in 1961 erases the 2nd amendment by law and obama and hillary clinton WILL sign this treaty to gain control of the guns and the American people and use the UN troops to do it so they can say they had nothing to do with it.Thousands of Americans will die for obamas and clintons political gain,power and control,socialism at its finest.Voting obama out of the white house is the only way to stop this socialistic move by obama and hillary clinton

    4. Paul says:

      blained 13…check tis http://www.nrapvf.org/Obama

    5. LarryN says:

      The sole purpose of the UN has been to drag the US down rather than the rest of the world coming up. The idea that we shouldn't get out is ludicrous, tear the building down and build Freedom Park in it's Place.

    6. GLW513 says:

      I teach a course on the U.S. Constitution and this is what I tell my students every semister. The U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amdendment gives us the "Right To Bear Arms". It does not gives us the right to bear ammunition! Nor, does it stop a city like New York charging $500.00 for a gun permit!

      • Chuck Esposito says:

        GLW513 – If you are teaching a course on it you should spell it correctly: “Amendment” not “Amdendment.” More importantly, you should not propagate the popular (but false) notion that the Second Amendment (or, for that matter, any Amendment listed in the Bill of Rights) “gives” us anything. We are endowed by our Creator (not by the federal government) with “certain unalienable rights” and it is the government’s job to “secure” those rights. That’s what the second Amendment does – secure our right to keep and bear arms – against, for example, a treaty that would violate that right.

        • Chuck Esposito says:

          Check out what the Judicial branch has to say about it. For example: West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election."

          Clear enough?

      • Bobbie says:

        You're not a good teacher but thanks for the hint, GLW513! The right to bear arms will stand! Ammunition is the target! Hey teach, how do you explain the reason for the second amendment without ammo? Distorting the students views of a wise and determined early America?

        Why wouldn't you want your students to defend themselves from anti-American government force who could take up arms at any moment? Or appreciate your students right to defend themselves from violators of their privacy both physical and residential? Don't you trust them to follow the law? Your personal influence distorts the purpose for the 2nd amendment. How do you qualify to teach the American constitution? Students would be taught much wiser by truth and facts with common sense and reason. Your lack of these qualifications cheats your students! Government paid are you?

      • Robert says:

        You need to quit your job teaching then, GLW! It is this kind of wrongful and illogical thinking that is destroying our country. You make it sound like the 2nd Amendment is a bad thing. What a fool you are, and you are spewing this idiocy to your young students. Any infringement, including making ammo so expensive, is clearly against the constitution….and you are a teacher???? NOT!
        No Obama on Nov. 6, 2012!

      • Erik S says:

        Pathetic. It's no wonder our education system stinks.

      • ChrisB says:

        I disagree with you. The 2nd Amendment does guarantee your right to bear ammunition. Ammunition is part of the gun. Without ammo, the gun is nothing more than a paper weight.

      • Randy A says:

        Part of the purpose to "Bear Arms" was/is for the ability of self defense and the defense of your country. Any attempt to discourage, hinder or complicate said right is a blatant voilation of the right itself. So to imply that ammunition should be controlled (without which, the gun is useless) or that permits should have to be paid, is truly a statement of ignorance. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post, but if it is as read, you Sir,,, are an idiot. Furthermore to endorse a $500.00 permit for self defense,,,, I gues only the well to do can do that????? I have been a Police Officer for 16 years and nothing gives me more comfort than knowing that any decent, law abiding citizen can have the ability to protect themselves or back me up if needed.

      • Climber777 says:

        The right to bear arms contains the intent of the framers of the constitution to include ammunition. Otherwise it would be "the right to bear clubs".
        I don't believe an attack in this direction could survive the close scrutiny of constitutional scholars and attorneys.
        And many citizens would riot, which I think is understood.
        Exhorbitant permit fees, and any other restriction of the type are nothing more than a legal bias against the poor (and the poor are close to rioting already, as far as I can tell).
        My spelling leaves much to be desired, but your spelling is atrocious.

      • dennis grant says:

        Do you mention to your class that the amendment states the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed?" At some point the government (State or Local) depriving citizens of ammunition or pricing permits out of reach for ordinary American's becomes an infringement of a basic right. The 14th amendment prohibits this! (I hope).

    7. John Detwiler says:

      To ignore the 2nd amendment would require another amendment, so there fore there is nothing that any treaty could do to change our constitutional protection. But some of these politically activist judges are capable of anything, as they have proved before. But I myself will keep my arms loaded and handy for anyone who decides to ignore my warnings that I have posted on a sign. This property is protected by God and Guns, if you violate this. I will introduce to one, and send you to the other.

    8. Max VonDrok says:

      I’ve sent letters to my Senate & Congressional reps. re concern about this treaty. Unfortunately I live in the “PRC”, (Peoples Republik of California), so their response was predictable. Yes. This treaty will be Death of the 2nd Amd. by 1000 cuts. The only good news is this gives us time to stock up on serious Military hardware & ammo before supplies shut down. Continue writing your respective Reps. Conservatives will respond positively. But remember: a Bark, (no matter how loud), is useless without a BITE.

    9. ShooterBobSC says:

      The rights are INALIENABLE… The UN can pound sand… The folks coming for them? Well, they can have them bullets first… And yes that means regardless of the uniform they wear…

      • wiesenan says:

        Preach on brother, I'm right there with you. A unloaded firearm is nothing but a paper weight.

    10. Keith Allison says:

      In order to do away with our 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms, it would have to be done through the amending process. None of our God given Rights can be taken away without our own government amending the Constituiton.

      • Bob says:

        Sorry, Treaties once ratified by the Senate DO override the Constitution. This sad but true. A bigger problem is how our Government will openly support this attak on our rights.

        • Artie Press says:

          Sorry Bob, but you are absolutely wrong. No treaty can supercede the Constitution, PERIOD!! Any attempt to do so would be treasonous. The Bill of Rights CANNOT be changed! Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you know what the Supremacy Clause is? Here's a hint, look up Article VI, Clause 2, in the Constitution, and then apply that to your rationale.

      • Brentha says:

        Well, Keith, with all that Obama and his cronies have done so far, would you put it past our own government amending the Constitution? I sure would not.

    11. @s0nspark says:

      I find it sad that Americans are so numb…

      The fact is that most other countries and liberals here abhor the freedom Americans enjoy. It is difficult, if not impossible, to constrain a free man exercising his freedoms!! Most political systems want you squarely under the boot. Not there? They aren't happy.

      In the end, we should *all* be free to exercise our personal beliefs to the fullest extent that our *personal* freedom allows. I do not want *my* freedom imposing on another, nor do I want their freedom limiting me.

      If you believe owning a gun is evil then simply do not own a gun. I do not feel that way and I believe no person or government has the right to deprive me of my God-given right to defend innocent life!

      If, by chance, I find myself in a position of having to defend innocent life, I trust the legal system to hold me to the code of conduct I agreed to when receiving my concealed carry permit and I work hard to act in accordance with it!

      When will people realize that others are *jealous* of our freedoms!

      They want us just as controllable as those trampled underfoot and disarmed as law-abiding "subjects"? I am not a subject – I am a *citizen*! Look up the difference!!!

    12. Ben says:

      Time we quit the Un and NATO, we have funded with our money and men the largest portion of there origination and it no longer fits us, I don't know about you but some scum bag from Africa or the middle east is not going to tell me what I can and cant do in this country,
      So I say out of there club and we must have them evacuate our land as well, all them, let them go train some place else, we don't want to play and if we do we will kill every dam one of them, they need to leave this land now.

    13. disgustedwithitall says:

      I disagree with the U S being in the UN we need to get out, and let them know here and now they can do what ever they like, but stay the heck out of AMERICAS BUSINESS. The UN needs to be disbanded anyway they are totally useless

      • Dan says:

        We need to stay in so we know what's going on but pull the money we pay. The US pays 25% of the cost of that useless organization and most countries want us less powerful and despise us as a country. De fund the United Nations now!

    14. bob says:

      what we need to do is go to the white house and take OUR hose back and get some people that are americans and are smart enough to run our country the way we want them to run it and if the (democrats) dont like it deport there sorry asses

    15. An American Citizen says:

      With all that the U.N> does NOT do, it seems a true waste for the USA to keep supporting it and carrying the load for all of these countries who oppose us, who cause much of the terrorism and hostility in the world.

      It seems time to tell them to pack up and find a new home, that NYC and the USA don't need or want them.

      When the most violent and greatest Human Rights violators are put on Committees and decide that the USA does not have human rights and that we are one of the worst violators of rights is just too much for me.

      • panzrwagn says:

        Well, when the shoe fits … The most violent and greatest Human RIghts violators in most peoples eyes who live out side the US is the US. And just for the record, we are 300 and change million on a space rock housing 7 Billion, there's a lot more people who don't look like us than do. And their votes count. Upwards of half a million civilian dead alone in Iraq – in a war that didn't need to happen. All too frequent Drone oopsies nearly every day killing innocent civilians. A higher percentage of the populatiion incarcerated than any other country. Maybe this is collateral damage to you, but to those people who have lost family, in countries where family is everything, yeah, that's a pretty egregious breach of Human Rights.

    16. KIGER says:

      First off if the US were to cut off all it’s funding to the UN and give it 60 days to vacate the building and exit our soil it might implode as did it’s predecessor. Secondly as an organization it’s missions have failed. It has not ended Wars or conflict, hunger, disease, World equality or improved the lot of any people. It is impotent and a bloated bureaucracy that is bent on the destruction of the US.

    17. 1-Eddie-1 says:

      If the ATT gets adopted by UN American traitors, it will have to be implemented. There are people in our country that have sworn an oath to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, that oath has no expiration date.

      • Paul Erwin says:

        This treaty will be carried out by UN TROOPS made up from terrorist countries that want ALL AMERICANS DEAD and obama already has civilian troops loyal to him training on the streets of south carolina and st. louis.There are also 20,000 russian troops on United States soil in the northern U.S.THIS IS REAL AND HAPPENING RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES,are Americans going to stand up and fight for their freedom and the protection of their families and loved ones or are they going to go defenseless against thieves,killers,rapists,pediphiles,kidnappers,gang members,drug dealers and worst of all OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

    18. sclinesr says:

      I disagree with the authors assesment that the US pulling out of the UN would be harmful to US interests. The UN is already harmful to our interest and have been for decades. Also the UN can not stand on its own without our money and our military.

    19. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Short answer, no.

    20. If anyone is doubting that our Imperial Leader doesn't like America…read this!

    21. copejames82 says:

      Why don't the American people rescind the lease on the U.N. bulding and all of it's holdings and move them off of U.S. soil. Then we can remove orselvels from the U.N..

      • John Lowery says:

        It's not a lease. John David Rockefeller donated the land, which he owned, to the United Nations. It is no longer US soil. It has the same classification as an embassy or consulate, as do every one of its many offices throughout the US. Can't be undone under EXISTING law. Pray for a small, very accurate asteroid. Sometime before 7/27/12.

    22. Supposing Obama signs this and the Senate ratifies, can a new President revoke it?

      • Gray2Hairs says:

        Not before all gun owners are considered as terrorists….OH, wait, we already are.

    23. The statement, "No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities." is only partially correct.

      The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. Our Second Amendment rights can only be taken from us through outright government tyranny and oppression.

    24. Tricia Stickel says:

      Do not forget ratification was not required to implement in full form UN Agenda 21 that is in full swing in largest states and smallest cities and towns

      • David W says:

        Agenda 21 is * non-binding * if it is implemented in the US, that's due to our Government's willing participation, not forced compliance by the UN….

    25. BumpNRun1 says:

      I gave a High school speech in 1959 that my History/Civics teacher helped me write. I that speech, and I still remember it rote, I stated " all treaties made under the authority of the United Nations shalll become the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every court shall be bound" . Is this or is it not valid? Are we being hood-winked?

      • William says:

        Yes they do become the Law of the Land, but there is also a Supremacy Clause that says the Constitution is Supreme and that all laws and treatys have to be in line with the Constitution if not the the law and or treaty are null and void.

    26. Art Bralick says:

      Viva la Revolutione!

    27. Chief Joe says:

      As a 20 year Navy Vet I swore and oath to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic". This end run our our second amendment rights is an affront by BOTH. We must as citizens and patriots fight this at every turn because fighting with the pen and ballot box is far easier and much less bloody than if we must fight with the very arms we will be losing if it gets ratified.

    28. Old Marine says:

      I disagree with your statement, "..if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT." Even if P.O.T.U.S. does sign it, Sole – Executive Agreement, It is potentially inconsistent with the Treaty Clause ( http://rebuildingfreedom.org/2012/07/10/brief-les… ) and has the potential to overwrite rights under state and federal laws, thus going against the Supremacy Clause.

    29. Howdy says:

      The worst part is he doesn't necesarilly have to have the senate ratify it. Since he's dealing with commerce between the US and other nations, it can be called a foreign policy agreement, which allows the President to make a "sole-executive decision". It's not an uncommon thing, really. Many Presidents since the Kennedy Administration have made these decisions. All Obama would have to do is notify congress of what he's doing. They wouldn't have any say, they'd just be notified. Be watchful for this. If it goes through the senate, great. It will be shot down by them, because a normal treaty requires a 2/3 vote, and the dems have only a little more than half. Republicans will be militant against this. You don't have to be head cashier at the wal-mart to figure that out, so I would bet Obie knows it too and is hunting for a way around it. Be aware of this.

    30. rick says:

      to do away with the second amendment and the right to bear arms for individuals is not only crazy but absurd, there is a reason the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment. only a fool would want to change the 2nd amendment.

    31. William Jabibes says:

      The private life of every citizen of the United States of America can not be rule by the United Nations.
      It is clearly stipulated in the United States Constitution, Amendment II states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

    32. Joseph sneckenberg says:

      ONE THING YOUR NOT WANTING TO MENTION, AMERICANS ARE TIRE OF ALL THAT GOES ON IN WASHINTON AND THERE STATES. I FOR ONE BELIEVE IT COULD CAUSE A ARMED FIGHT IN AMERICA, AS FAR AS THE UN IS CONCERNED, IT CAN NOT HAPPEN. BOTH PARTY MEMBERS ARE WRONG.

    33. This issue here is that the beliefs of widely varied nations..many of which directly contradict those of United States citizens…should unduly damage or attempt to undermine our values and seek to control our businesses, ultimately leads to control of the people and is exactly what Obama would love to have happen. Firearm control is but a pawn in the game of control….give people a reason to be scared (guns are inherently evil, you know), and they will be; thus giving rise to the need for a protective nanny to look out for us all.

    34. Dan says:

      What do people think will happen when our small arms manufactures lose $55 billion-a-year in trade?
      A. The price of U.S. civilian guns will SKYROCKET!!!!
      B. Our firearms industry will close because of the loose of $90 billion ($55 billion exports and $35 billion domestically) a year
      C. The U.S. cannot suport the lost of a $90 billion a year industry.
      D. Now realize that these numbers don’t include the accessory, magazine, or ammunition markets.

      And these facts aren’t even the Anti/Pro gun arguements. This is simple math.
      This NEEDS to be stopped for the good of our Country

    35. madashellnow says:

      Clinton and Obama have already said they support the treaty. However, 58 Senators sent a letter to Clinton and Obama saying they would oppose ratification of the treaty. Let's hope they hold their ground and do not get their arms twisted as they did for Obamacare.

    36. john says:

      I didn't vote for Obama or any one because there wasn't a good choice I did believe Obama for a little while right before he became president I still like the guy but he either forgets too much or he just lied his way to where he is now… and I do think something needs to be done about guns in america . When a person wants to buy a gun they need a psychology test .And if they round up all the unlicensed and illegal fire arms Like they do with the Drugs..Then a lot of these problems will start to go away I came from a city where you can buy a unlicensed gun 98 times faster than you could find a bag of weed

      • jbrewer says:

        Go back to your city. I'm disabled and can't live on what I get a month. I have to supplement our food with game meat just to survive, and it is much healthier. I don't want to be rude but city folks have no clue what the other 75% of the country does for entertainment and survival.

      • EhlerDave says:

        We here in Oklahoma do not have guns that are licensed. We are still some what free. And just a bit of info for you, they are doing a great job keeping out illegal drugs.

      • Lessdrop says:

        This ia a major problem. We need to find out what city this is. Everyone write to your representatives immediatly so we can help these folks improve their WEED SUPPLY! …;)

      • True American says:

        How stupid can you be..rounding up all the guns like they round up all the drugs?? The war on drugs isn't a war..but the war on guns will be. Learn how to reload..and get lots of components for same.. If we lose the right to keep and bear arms this country will no longr be a republic…it will be a dictatorship. We have the elected aristocracy NOW…we actually need to clean out all the people in Washington..including the ones that really run the country…..the middle level bureaucrats that answer to no one and the lobbyists..who actually write our laws…mainly to suit the companies they work for..Both groups work only for their own agendas..not for the good of the people of the US.

    37. Fred says:

      What happened to the people's rights. If they want to change the rules that have stood for over 200 years, let's put it up for a vote. I thought that this is the AMERICAN way.

      Please don't take away my rights and my freedom.

    38. CB750 says:

      My Senator Debbie Stabenow Democrat MI, tells me in an e-mail that any UN Treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. According to Senator Stabenow all of this talk of any UN Treaty is of no consequence as given the current make up of the Senate any treaty taking away Second Amendment rights would not pass.

      If Senator Stabenow a Democrat I do not trust is right what's the big deal about any UN Treaty. As I remember Bill Clinton signed on to the Kayto Global warming treaty treaty but it never passed in the Senate

    39. Pete says:

      The "Death by a Thousan Cuts" vs. all out frontal assault on the second ammendment is the right analogy we should watch out for. Here in NJ the restrictions are many to ownership, carry and use of firearms. BUT, they have been ruled to conform to the 2nd ammendment.

    40. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Is the author that naive? Does he not realize Congress and our Constitution means nothing to Obama? Obama has total contempt for the 2nd amendment and the right of the people to protect themselves and their families. How many more times must Obama prove he has become a true dictator and that the Constitution is an impediment to his socialist agenda. Just remember, in a totalitarain society, the first freedom is taken from the people is the freedom to own a gun.

    41. Tony Tumminello says:

      I don't agree that "if the US pulls out of the UN, nothing will happen; they will still do things that affect the US". Since we provide a majority of the money to run the UN, our leaving would keep them busy just trying to "stay alive". The UN has been not only "biting the hand that feeds it", it has been feasting all the way up to the wrist. While we are at it, we can invite them to leave the US too, and rename their buildings the "New Twin Towers". We could replace the office space we lost and NY would probably reduce traffic and the cost of police who handle problems caused by diplomats. I'm sure they would keep their plush embassies so they can still take advantage of "decadent" US luxuries and "corrupt" entertainment.

    42. Gary says:

      Are there no Patriots in this country?
      Where is you heart to protect and defend The Constitution of The United States?
      Wake up America, this country was founded on the "Right to Bear Arms" and be free from any tyrants
      foreign or domestic……Don't let it happen!!!!

    43. J.T. says:

      The second amendment in stating that every citizen has the constitutional right to bear arms (use lethal force in the defense of personal liberty) does this mean we have a legal right to kill anyone, who willfully tries to take our personal firearms away from us, absoultely, that's what it means. This means anyone period, all the treaties in the world connot change this fact. Only the suspension of the 2nd amendment by congress can change that.

    44. Robert says:

      This administration is like a many headed rattlesnake it just keeps on striking everywhere. I guess the intent is to weaken patriots with assault overload. Throw enough strikes out and one is bound to find flesh..

    45. apologisthater says:

      Time to stock up!

    46. victor hamel says:

      This will have to be watched very carefully, as this Administration is trying every way they can, to destroy our Constitution and they know that, the 1st and 2nd Amendments protect the other 25., but the 2nd Amend. being the #1 Target, keeping us Free.

    47. This article leaves out a very important — and very disturbing — point. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, says: "This Constitution … and all treaties made, or which shall be made…be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby" There has, historically, been a very real concern that our Constitutional rights can be stripped away by treaty. Most court rulings have protected our Constitutional rights – but it only takes one or two supreme court appointments to change that. there's some discussion on this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?wiki/?Supremacy_Clau

      • Artie Press says:

        If you are going to quote the Supremacy clause, quote the entire clause:

        "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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

        Take note of the part that you left out, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES!! In other words, no treaty can supercede the Constitution.

    48. How many lives are they (I dont care who) prepared to sacrifice trying to take my guns?

    49. Docgmt says:

      Some questions I have on the ATT

      1. How many wars have been started by civilian gun ownership v military/gov. ?

      2. How many countries have had citizens overthrown brutal dictators because they had guns? ( Arab Spring anyone? )

      3. Last one. How many of the dictators at the U.N. will use this as the excuse to crush any political opposition to their oppressive regime? ( There by ensuring #2 will never happen )

    50. C. Peterson says:

      The 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens to 'keep and bear arms', but why–what is the purpose ? Read Thomas Jefferson's writings on this subject; the purpose of giving citizens this right is so that they can protect themselves from 'tyrannical government'!! Now is certainly the time to study our rights and PREPARE!

    51. John Lowery says:

      The founders did not specify in Article VI that treaties approved by a 2/3 of the Senate would be the Law of the Land; nor that the Executive was required to request Advice and Consent; neither did it require that the Senate ACT on such requests.
      Article VI should be amended to clarify that treaties must be agreed to by 2/3 of the Senate.
      The founders were naive in one important way. They expected office-holders to serve from a sense of duty, with honor. They now operate in self-interest or with the objective of undermining and destroying the United States. And their PRIMARY objective while holding office is to continue to hold it, or to move to the next level.
      We shall hear the words again soon, depending on November. "When, in the course of Human events…". The ATT is a large step toward removing the 2nd Amendment by the United Nations. Politicians take warning: this will NOT stand. An Article V convention called by 2/3 of the States can fix it. And can do so peacefully, rapidly and without and Constitutional Enumerated Power that any Branch can exercise to impede it.
      Agitate your State Legislatures so draft the call for such action.

    52. FormerSoldier says:

      Before people freak out over this, read Reid vs Covert, the Supreme Court has already ruled that no treaty can over-rule the Constitution, and if that fails, the UN will find out why we have a Second Amendment…the hard way.

    53. guest says:

      Refer to SCOTUS decision Reid v. Covert (1957). No treaty can abrogate the rights given to the people by the Constitution. Also, we should stay in the UN since we are a permanent member of the Security Council and can nullify a lot of the garbage the third worlders proffer. However, we should give the UN notice that they have three years to move their HQs out of the U.S. – perhaps to one of the 'neutral' parasitic countries like Switzerland or Sweden.

    54. Joe Cola Martino says:

      I feel that any statement made by the liberal democats on gun control of any kind is political suicide. The UN is useless without American support. To hell with the UN. All we have to do is get rid of Obama and the problem will go away. I am counting on the 80 million plus gun owners in America to act in November and VOTE the liberal bastards out of office. Remember, all gun owners are made up of democrats, republicans, and Independants. Make sure you contact your state legislators and let them know your feelings as I did.

    55. Brock Powers says:

      a large portion of the US population promises to shoot its way out of this giant socialist experiment if need be.

    56. Joan says:

      I believe that if we alllow congress to ratify this then our constitution recognizes int'l treaty as being above
      all.

    57. RP Breese says:

      If the United States becomes a signatory to this treaty, the Obama administration could begin to enforce it, especially if it is never brought before the Senate for ratification, nor if the President has not renounced it. The enforcement would be legal under the Convention of Vienna. This 1969 treaty was signed by the US, but never radified. In essence, it states that being a signatory to a treaty means the treaty is enforce, unless renounced or not ratified. Just another end run around the Constitution and powers of Congress to ratify treaties

    58. BlackOps says:

      Come get some!!!

    59. Villa Merkle says:

      We need to keep watch that Obama doesn't sign the UN Gun Grab Treaty against the US citizens desires, by Executive order!

      He has much abused the Executive Power provision and used it as a dictator would do!

    60. drummer says:

      It would take a multi-page paper to fully explain the following; however, space is limited, so I will do my best. Today the USA and the other countries of the world are politically roughly equivalent to the 13 American colonies under the Articles of Confederation (right after the American Revolutionary War). Those colonies were 13 politically independent states/nations. The UN is currently roughly equal to our National Government under the Articles of Confederation – potentially dangerous, but relatively powerless. Over time, The Articles of Confederation became the US Constitution. The Federal Government (the UN) was much more powerful, but still limited and the 13 states (the USA and the other countries of the world) were still independent, free and self governing. Within 3 generations that had changed. About half of the states ( USA/other countries) wanted to leave the Federal Government ( the UN), but discovered that they were no longer strong enough to do so (they lost the Civil War). I believe that, like those states that lost the Civil War, in the future the USA will want to leave the UN but will find itself too weak to do so. We need to get out of the UN NOW, while we are still strong enough to and while the getting is good.

    61. Gray2Hairs says:

      Considering that much of the current administrations actions are simply illegal and contrary to the constitution in every way, what makes anyone think that the UN treaty will not be used to ram through laws that disregard the 2nd Amendment? There are courts all over this country that appear to not be interested in the constitution but rather a political quest.
      We live in an era where those who make the laws don't know the constitution nor care about it so why would they consider a little thing like the 2nd Amendment? Keep thinking that the constitution is valid and you will be lined up against the wall waiting for the firing squad because the only people with guns with be the government and criminals (that will be you and me, the criminals). That means that everyone of you who has a gun will be the subject of government action.

    62. Bob says:

      "If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities."

      The core problem is too many in our Government WILL take those actions.

    63. Gil says:

      During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated that he supported the 2nd Amendment. When considering his recent evolution on certain issues, what makes you think he will support the 2nd Amendment now. He finds the Constitution as a impediment in his quest to impose social justice and global equality. If the government can take away the 2nd Amendment, then they can take away the rest without fear of citizens defending their rights. Without firearms, we would still be subject to foreign tyranny. It should be clear to all, that this administration does not respect the Constitution, Capitalism, or the very citizens they are sworn to serve and protect. If you want to keep your freedoms, then vote these liberals out!

    64. David W says:

      "2. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights."

      How does this infringe US gun rights? Our rights stated in the Constitution end at our borders, no matter what effect that may have on US business interests. If foreign countries want US guns out of their markets, that's their right and our only remedy for that is trade agreements.

      If foreign shareholders attempt to stop companies from manufacturing firearms from the inside, then that is an issue for the company to address internally… It also seems unlikely that any shareholder with enough interest to change the course of a firearm manufacturers business plan would essentially destroy their investment by shutting down an established product line.

      If foreign subcontractors choose to pull out of the supply chain, all the better, then those jobs will have to return to the US!

      Get real here, there is no way that the UN is going to take away American gun ownership by force or legal trickery, unless we allow it in our domestic policy. Worry about something that's real.

    65. David M.Ernest says:

      "The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. Our Second Amendment rights can only be taken from us through outright government tyranny and oppression." – and lawlessnes. We have a constitutional right to defend our life, liberty, and property against lawlessness as citizens of the United states. Any government official trying to impose lawless regulation outside our basic social compact, does so at extreme peril to our nation and the people who comprise it. I'd suggest elected and appointed officials put out bill of rights and constitution first and formost in their minds for one absolutely critical reason, these are the standards society is reqiured to uphold against any deviation foreign or domestic. Society is required to uphold the 2nd amendment, every single one of us.

    66. newspooner says:

      A very poorly written article on a subject that is easy to explain. Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US. Otherwise, all liberty will be lost.

    67. Harold Geeting says:

      The UN and Obama are some of the best magicians ever seen. While most of the U.S. is looking at the UN firearms grab there is another UN committe meeting to get control of our internet and all communication world wide.

    68. horsewithnoname says:

      The UN can come take my guns, only if they are able to take a belly full of hot lead in the process!

    69. The UN is the instrument that is working towards the "New World Order" and" One World Government". This was not the purpose for which it was created; and it is no place for the US to be if we value our Sovereignty via our Constitution! I, personally, invite them to seek new headquarters OFF our soil.
      Should we remain a member? I say NO! Their current intent is to drag us into World Socialism – and, unfortunately, too many of our own people, and politicians, see that as a worthwhile goal. For my money, if they want that, let them have it – but include the USA OUT! Anyone living here who believes in that, I also invite to leave! Let the Socialists prove that their way is better before they drag us into it! We already know that our way works (if the Progressive leftists would leave it alone) from 200 years as being the most prosperous Nation (if not in cash, then in Freedom) in the world. What the UN wants us to accept has failed, on both counts, wherever it has been tried! Yes, some little Nations appear to be happily Socialist, BUT, it must be remembered that, without the US defense umbrella protecting them from predators, they would have fallen to Communism, or worse, long ago!
      We need to carry "the big stick" back to the UN – and not quake in our boots at the thought of using it; and if they don't like it, invite them to take their corrupt nonsense elsewhere!

    70. Guess says:

      Hmmmmm….As I read it, they are going to try and stop components used by manufacturer from coming into the US. I say GREAT. We, the US, will just make them here.

      That means better quality as china is JUNK, and jobs. Oh, and mark my words. If the political idiots want to see a civil war, just try to take our guns. Those idiots in DC are on thin ice as it is.

    71. Thor says:

      The supreme law of the US is the Constitution as amended. The Prez can't change that, neither can the Senate or even combined. Very clear. No UN existed and if the so called global economy is over-regulated then everything will be made in USA. Flip these guys off, vote out Obama, vote in more Repubs to the Senate. Another left wing prez pushed the League of Nations. It died. Maybe we can dunp the UN Hey, I wonder if the UN pays real estate taxes?

    72. Rick says:

      I am a Canadian'but even I know that the second amendment does not say that every-one can have a gun.It's purpose was to have an armed militia.Owning a gun does not make you a member of a militia.That takes training that most U.S. gun owners don't have,and automatic weapons are not for protectio,they are to kill people and should not be available to the general public.

      • rdman says:

        Really? Okay, I'll bite mister Troll. Why are all the supreme court rullings and arguments for the individual rights wrong? Where did you obtain your law degree? And from which university did you obtain your English degree? And maybe you could post your accredidations for your degrees in history, psycology, political science, and theology? And yes, if I'm protectiing my constitution, and my aggresors have automatic weopons, then I myself, as an indivdual, will probably requre automatic weopons to carry out my constitutional duties. And if you want to argue that point maybe we should move this conversation to a forum that discusses the validity of the book "The Art of War" instead of continue this silly discussion here?

    73. Bill says:

      How can a consortium of countries that are socialist, dictatorships and authoritarian governments dictate what a free country can do? The lawyers will find a way to apply the ATT to US citizens 2nd Amendmendment and grab our guns. The reason Japan did not try to invade the US in WWII was fear that there are too many Americans that are armed and have rifles at home. It would result in urban warfare with the Japanese losing. It leads me to believe what has been said about the war in Iraq, it's practice for Urban Warfare through Martial law with a FEMA lockdown and blue/red ribboned citizens labeled through a selective process.

    74. danny says:

      1957 supreme court ruled no treaty can supersede the second amendment

    75. Paul says:

      All the talk. Hot air. I will not "turn in" my guns as long as I'm alive. If anyone wants them, they'll have to kill me first. My heirs get them when I die. I would hope they would have the same feeling. If not, may God have mercy on them for being stupid.

    76. Jean says:

      A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
      – George Washington

    77. markiv says:

      National Sovereignty. I know you’re all just that much smarter than me or people from about 230+ years ago…but I wonder if giving other nations the power to dissolve our self-determination or rescind our national declaration would be considered treason.

    78. Firebird says:

      We must pull out of the UNITED NATIONS it was never ever created for PEACE but for WORLD GOVERMENT its way past time to evict these crinimals from america,raize the entire UN facility to the ground and turn the area into a BIRD REFUGE without the vultures already nesting there

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×