Why the UN Arms Trade Treaty Violates the Constitution

The UN Arms Trade Treaty should alarm any liberty-loving citizen.  Every UN treaty requires the participating country to turn over its sovereignty regarding that particular issue.  An agreement with the UN removes the autonomy of the nation and the independence of the people to make their own laws free of UN control and dictate.   The UN Arms Trade Treaty is no exception.  It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation.  Patrick Henry gave this clear warning in his day,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.  O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

We should guard with jealous attention and be very suspicious of this present attempt to remove our public liberty. 

The first problem with the treaty is that it uses some incredibly awkward wording, and the meaning of sentences can be very difficult to understand because the structure is so bad.  It is as if someone who holds English as a third or fourth language wrote the English version, but I digress.  I want to highlight just SOME of the problems with this treaty, and there are many.

The very first provision in the preamble should be enough to make Americans abandon the entire treaty.  

The States Parties to this Treaty,

  1. Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

This might not cause alarm to the average person who has never read the UN Charter.  But those who have will understand that we are already on shaky ground.  It is simply not possible for the UN charter and the US Constitution to co-exist without one being abrogated to the other. Consider just the preamble to the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

Therefore, each party to the treaty must write laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms consistent with those standards.  So, each law must guarantee that the sale and possession of guns are only allowed where the GOVERNMENT can ensure that such activity will not be a “threat to peace” or cause “breaches of peace” and these laws MUST conform to international law.  How does international law define “threat to peace”?  What activity will cause “breaches of peace”?  Compliance with this treaty now obligates our Congress, when drafting laws, to comply with international law?  Seriously?  This makes our Congress bound by a global democracy and not a Constitutional Republic based upon the consent of the governed.  This move toward global governance is antithetical to the Constitution.

Another principle of the UN Charter requires Congress, when drafting these laws, to focus on international cooperation.  What is the purpose to be considered when doing so?  According to the Charter, these laws must solve international problems of economic, social, cultural, humanitarian character and promote human rights.

So wrapped up in just the first sentence of the treaty; every law Congress makes to comply with this treaty must regulate the sale and possession of firearms to:

  1. Act collectively with and in compliance with international law;
  2. Ensure that firearms will not be used as a “threat to peace”;
  3. Ensure that firearms will not be used to invoke a “breach of peace”;
  4. Solve international problems.

These requirements create a “government knows best” frame of mind regarding who can possess firearms and how they will be used.  This is completely antithetical to the foundation of America and the understanding of our right to keep and bear arms.  If you doubt this statement, please read my previous writing discussing the true understanding of our second amendment.  There is no way that Congress will be able to meet these criteria and maintain the protection of our second amendment rights. 

Section 4 of the preamble of the UN Arms Trade Treaty makes the following requirement of those under the treaty:

The States Parties to this Treaty,

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and ERADICATE the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime.

Congress must write laws to regulate “small arms and light weapons” based upon international standards and must also PREVENT illicit trade and unauthorized use.  That word “illicit” is not necessarily synonymous with “illegal.”  If they had wanted to say “illegal”, meaning based upon established laws, surely they would have said so.  They did not, however, and by stating “illicit” instead of “illegal” they are applying a subjective standard, not codified by law but established by a “common custom, rule, or standard.” 

The UN will dictate to Congress and to the citizens of this nation, who will keep arms, what arms they will keep, and for what purpose they will keep them, all based upon subjective standards and international law.  Again, there is NO WAY Congress can meet this standard and still uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Ratifying this treaty will be turning over our government to foreign rule and would be an act of treason.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. ~George Washington, Farewell Address 1796.

Proponents may attempt to argue this treaty is only to create laws and regulations governing foreign trade and commerce.  That would be a lie and the articles of this treaty directly contradict that assertion.  Article 9 requires each government to take appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control the buying and selling of firearms within that nation.  We have just stepped out of the realm of the international and are now imposing laws controlling the people within their own country.

How is each government supposed to control this buying and selling? 

The Treaty requires the establishment of a “national control system.”  Great…another federal bureaucracy!   

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent, and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms.

What will this new federal agency do to comply with this Treaty? 

They will be required by the UN to collect “all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-users in the country or final destination.”  They will make sure “all appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request…to verif[y] the end users.”  And this bureaucracy will create “adequate measures that will allow them…to monitor and control” these firearms.

How will this bureaucracy “monitor and control the firearms? 

The Treaty requires, in Article 11, each government to maintain records regarding the “quantity, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, and details of end-users.”  They must keep these records for a minimum of 10 years.  These reports must be submitted to the UN’s Implementation Support Unit to be added to the UN Register of Conventional Arms.  In order to purchase and possess a firearm citizens will now be required to give to the United Nations their names, addresses, phone numbers, birth date, and any other information the UN feels is necessary.

In summary, the national control agencies will collect all information necessary to identify and track not only the firearms but those who will be the “end-users,” the possessors of those firearms and that information will be submitted to the UN to be kept on their records for 10 years.  Make no mistake, this is not referring to foreign trade, this is a direct control and monitoring of the individuals of that country possessing arms.

But wait; there is an amendment process to this Treaty.   Pursuant to Article 20, any government can submit an amendment to the Treaty at any time and ratification only requires an “adoption by consensus” or two-thirds of the governments present and voting at the Conference of State Parties.  Any such amendment ratified will enter into full force against all governments in the Treaty.   So if the government doesn’t like an amendment, too bad.

What happens if a government no longer wants to be part of this Treaty? 

Section 18 allows governments to withdraw from the treaty, but includes the provision that a government is “not discharged from the obligations” of the treaty even if they withdraw.  So you can withdraw, but the UN will still require you to fulfill the obligations of the treaty.  Are you kidding me?

The purpose of this Treaty is to regulate “small arms and light weapons” out of the hands of the individuals.  It will remove the need for the government to confiscate weapons.  All future sales will be so heavily regulated that purchasing a new firearm will be next to impossible.  If you still wish to wade through the heavy regulations, you will consent to having all of your personal identifying information submitted to the United Nations knowing they will keep that information on file for 10 years.  You will also consent to submit to foreign law that will dictate how you possess and use that firearm.  They won’t need to show up at your door to take your weapons, most citizens will simply find it too much trouble and not even bother.

Our second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  This Treaty is a violation of this amendment and is unconstitutional.  If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will be null and void and the people will not be bound by it.  Don’t believe me?  Read what our founders say about unconstitutional treaties.

The real question is, if the Senate ratifies this Treaty, or the President attempts to implement it without the authority of the Senate, what will THE PEOPLE do about it? 

Will we stand for the Constitution and demand that our states nullify this treaty as our founders require?  Or will we blindly submit to the tyranny of foreign law imposed upon us?  Sam Adams said,

‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.  It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”

Will we preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity or will we involve them in our doom?


Views: 866


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Ronald DuBois on July 31, 2012 at 1:31am

Mr. Angle. Unfortunately, you are perfectly correct, but I still don't think it means the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper. What it says is priceless - What is worthless are the corrupt politicians of the last 80 to 100 years, who have gradually ignored the Constitution to the point where it is no longer used to guide us as a Nation, and the American people who have allowed this to happen. I admit I am guilty. I always voted, based on the politicians whose promises seemed best, but always failed to reach fruition. The most I ever did about it was grumble.

With the nomination of Obama, I wondered who he was and where he came from. I researched him and told my wife, "I think he has a hidden agenda." to which she replied, "You're being racist."  I knew I was right, but nobody would listen to me. All I found in my research was readily available, but few others bothered to look, and the Media totally ignored the warning signs - literally censored the data, actually.

I immediately became active in the Tea Party movement, and started writing, and visited, called, faxed, my representatives. Since they were (are) Lautenberg, Menendez, and Rothman, it's to no avail, but I still hammer at them anyway. As I studied the constitution, Islam and Sharia, and many other subjects, I realized that this was not a simple problem, like just the Constitution being ignored. Just one string I followed, for example, was the Socialist/Marxist attack on our schools, where they expelled religion and its precepts, such as the Ten Commandments, and every other form of moral instruction. They eliminated teaching our history and constitution, so our children had no grounding in what made this country great. Basically, they destroyed our cohesion as a people, eliminating national pride and replacing it with a skewed world view. They taught our children that standing for the National Anthem, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, respecting the flag, and so on, was neither important nor necessary. That's just one string I followed, but they all led back to the "progressives", who are nothing more than Socialists, Marxists and Communists, and our Marxist President is the culmination of their work to-date.

As they continue to render the Constitution meaningless, and prepare us to become a Totalitarian State, the people are learning; they're waking up, and for the past 3 years have been fighting back. All is not lost, although the situation is dire. Many organizations now exist to spread the truth via the internet and private publications, hold rallies and meetings, and travel to Washington D.C., where I will be August 3rd, for my 14th time. Obama has gone too far, too fast, and that will be his undoing, because the people have caught on  and I don't believe he will get a second term.

I do have one fear. I believe if he thinks he will lose the election, he will have an incident created to declare an emergency and institute Martial Law. He has totally prepared for it, activating the FEMA camps and providing for them to be serviced and guarded, adding the amendment to the NDAA to allow using the Army and Marines on American soil to detain American citizens, giving himself the ability to shut down all communications, etc. This is all unconstitutional, but he did it via executive orders, and our cowardly representatives have not challenged him. You are right, that the 2nd Amendment allows us to be armed, and more citizens than Obama thinks, are going to take a stand to see that we are not disarmed or detained. I also know, as a veteran with many active duty contacts, that most of our armed forces will obey their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  Yes, the paper you say is worthless. We were all taught not to obey illegal orders, and we know that any order to deploy on US soil, against Americans, is illegal. Obama actually had a questionaire given to groups of Marines, that had questions like: Would you arrest American citizens, if ordered? and  Would you shoot American citizens if they refused to surrender their guns? I have a complete copy of training materials for the MIlitary Police, from classifying the Citizens arrested to interning them.

This is all coming to a head - faster than most realize. I think the only way Obama can win in November is by fraud, and I guarantee he'll try. Some patriotic groups are recruiting poll watchers, but Obama's people will be doing all they can to circumvent the law. We need to win by a large number of votes to win in spite of the expected fraud and dirty tricks.  With you, Thomas, I pray we win and reverse our direction. Ron D.

Comment by Thomas Angle on July 30, 2012 at 5:06am

If the Dick Act can not be repealed, then how can it be constitutional? Just a thought since in the Constitution there is a means to change everything.

But here is the reality. The Dick Act, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are all just pieces worthless of paper. Can they stop a tyrannical government? Can they stop the government from selling our sovereignty to the devil? Can they protect you in any way from any Hell bent group of politicians? The answers are NO, NO and NO. They are all just pieces of paper with ink on them, they can not stop a bullet, baton, door ran, etc... They are just words unless we stand up for the ideas on them.

Now I am going to be brutally honest. If you are offended easily, do not read on because I do not care to listen to excuses. Excuses never fixed anything.

Why do we all sit around here and think another piece of paper is going to stop the storm that is brewing? I look at a lot of profiles and most here are in the later years in life. How can you all live so long and yet think this? Give me a strait up answer? We already have a paper that defined exactly what the government can do. We have a compilation of letters that explains that piece of paper. If any of you are lost that would be the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. We also have quotes from many of founding fathers on their thoughts on the matters at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. So what is the issue? Why do we need another piece of paper saying the same things again? We all know the Second Amendment is there so we can arm ourselves with weapons (of military grade) to protect ourselves for the government.

We all sit here saying, I love my country, you are a patriot, I am a patriot, this is not right, that is not right, when is SOMEONE going to fix this. It is like many of us are waiting for mommy and daddy to come storming in and save us from the school yard bully. WE, I mean ALL OF US, are to blame from the mess we have.

We sat idle for way to long and did nothing. Now the Devil’s minions are at the door and we can here the chains of slavery rattling, yet it seems like all we can do cover our heads like scared little children. Look back at those men that signed the Declaration of Independence. They all signed their own death warrant and for most of them, their families death warrant when they signed it. If they lost, not only would they die, but their families stood a great chance of execution. If the families where not executed, all that they owned would have been taken and they would of been thrown out on the street. That is how much they believed in the cause. They latterly risked every earthly thinging they had. Think about that, think real hard about that.

What are you going to do without liberty? What will you tell you children and grand children? Well I did all I could do from the living room. I wrote my congressmen, but they would not change his mind. I am serious what are you going to tell them when they are enslaved and it happen on OUR watch.

We have all the legal and moral authority to make a stand. All we need to do is stick together and see it through. There is power in numbers and we have the numbers as long as we stand on the founding principles of this country. It is time to make a stand, if we don’t then the Constitution is just another worthless piece of paper.

Comment by Ronald DuBois on July 30, 2012 at 1:14am

Dear KrisAnne, Why are we paying congress to pass redundant Acts? Remember, there were plenty of reasons in 1902 to specifically define the use of regular, irregular militia, and the State Militias (National Guard). But we'll stick to what pertains to gun control and the Small Arms Treaty. The 2nd Amendment points out the necessity of having a militia, and of the people to keep and bear arms. That's because when the Constitution was written the people brought their own arms to battle. Never having been amended, all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 35 are still the "militia", and have the right to keep and bear arms.

Many today claim that we don't need certain weapons because they are not appropriate for hunting or target shooting. Sport was not what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. In the papers of numerous Founders, they say in plain English that the main purpose for Americans retaining their arms was in case tyranny tried to assume control over us we would have the means to stop it. Tyrants cannot subjugate an armed population. Russia and Germany, China, and many other countries, had the citizens "register" their guns . The next step was confiscating the guns. What followed the disarming of the people? Tens of millions of unarmed people, mostly the opposition, were murdered by those governments. In the recent past, Australia had the people register their guns, then confiscated them. What followed? Crime in Australia has gone up 40 %. In Switzerland, the Government issues every family military grade weapons. What followed? Switzerland has the LOWEST number of gun crimes in the WORLD. When are people going to learn that taking away guns from honest people increases gun crime, and allowing honest people to carry guns reduces crime?  This is accurate for every country in the world.

Now, the Socialists/Marxists in this country, as part of the New World Order they are trying to create, want our guns. They can't get them through our Congress, so they are going round-about through the corrupt UN, where China, Russia, Iran, and other good examples of freedom will vote to disarm us. I think not. The 2nd Amendment, is part of the Constitution, which is the law of the land. It cannot be superceded by a UN Treaty. The Dick Act, in further clarifying the part of the Militia in the Constitution, confirms that the Militia must be armed, as in the 2nd Amendment. The irregular Militia, not being a part of the Army or Regular Militia (National Guard), must keep their own weapons, so they can use them when, and if, necessary, The Dick Act can not be repealed. To do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, which would be a violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So don't dismiss the Dick Act so easily, because we need every little shred of support, even if it's redundant, to protect us from a Government that seems hell bent on changing our style of Government to  a Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Comment by KrisAnne Hall on July 29, 2012 at 8:01pm

I have heard so much about the Dick Act lately.  I don't understand why this Act is so impressive and carries so much authority.  So it says that our right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed?  Really?!!?  Isn't that what the Second Amendment says?  Why do we have to have a congressional act to bolster the second amendment? We do not!  Why are we paying politician to pass acts that are redundant to the constitution?  Why does this redundancy carry more weight than the Bill of Rights?  I think it just opens the door for the government to redefine what they meant and therefore further redefine what our founders wrote.  Why don't we just stick with the foundation and leave it at that?

Comment by J. Andrew Reid on July 28, 2012 at 1:53pm

The protection of our rights depends on 2 things; the Constitution and elected officials ready to uphold their oath to protect it. Holder, Obama and his appointees feel no obligation to do that so we certainly should not allow them anything that provides cover for an attack on our rights.This treaty could do that. Besides, who actually believes that the world's bad actors will simply comply just because we do? Is there anyone left who does not realize that the United Nations is an ineffectual waste of money?

Comment by Ronald DuBois on July 28, 2012 at 8:59am

You write great articles, but this one is missing the point. The Dick Act of 1902 disallows the control of our arms by ANYONE, and it may not be altered or rescinded. Even aside from our Constitution, the treaty would be invalid because of this act. Google it.  Ron D.

Comment by hunter60 on July 28, 2012 at 4:46am

The US out of the UN and the UN bulldozed into the East River. NY should welcome a new Wal-Mart where that temple of evil once stood.

Comment by Donald Mack Flippin on July 28, 2012 at 4:11am

Thank you so much, Ma'am.  Your article was so very informative.  I have

read others who have ranted and raved about this proposed treaty, but, by

and large, I didn't know what they were talking about, because, in many if

not most instances, I think that the ranters and ravers didn't know what they

were talking about, either.

Now, I believe I have a grasp on the subject ___ thanks to you.

And we agree!!

Semper Fi!

Comment by Jay Walker on July 27, 2012 at 11:08pm

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis of this abomination of a treaty.  I invite you all to consider a warning to Congress that I posted some days ago, on the same subject:


Comment by Jesus First Always! on July 27, 2012 at 7:05pm

Stir up the sheeple masses with various orchestrated disasters and catastrophes, scared them into action with a lot of theater and slight of hand so they all beg for protection or the Government tit and presto magico BHO gets another unbelievably, unconstitutional item passed by presidential authority. Can you see it snow balling into a dictatorship?

Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service