U.S. Government Says They “Would vote “yes” on the treaty” To Ban Guns Internationally

[Mtn.man]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/03/9523-u-s-government-says-they-would-vote-yes-on-the-treaty-to-ban-guns-internationally/

[UrbanWolf]

Good, now we are considering giving up our rights for governments overseas.

[dwalker460]

Well now that would be cause for Civil War, again...

Also, it would make any US representative or official who voted/signed/supported such a treaty immediately guilty of treason and it would be every US citizens Constitutional duty to bring the traitors to justice, which in this case the punishment is death, not season tickets to Gitmo.

[Kraven251]

Here is the issue...this does not restrict any of our 2A rights, it does however impact the ability of the US to import/export firearms based on international laws.

International laws cannot govern the United States, just as the United States cannot supercede international laws outside of its jurisdiction. Now if they tried to enforce an UN treaty in the United States that the Senate did not accept that would be unconstitutional and reason for alarm and action.

At the moment the only thing I am reading from this is that there could be additional import/export restrictions put in place. Any savvy firearm manufacturer would get around this by opening a facility stateside.

[Rooskibar03]

The treaty does however require countries to maintain a list of all guns within its borders and track those items.

National registry and universal background checks anyone?

[Clint45]

The treaty does however require countries to maintain a list of all guns within its borders and track those items.


That is expected to be applied to the Congo, Somalia, Tunisia, Pakistan, and El Salvador? Good luck with that.

[MuzzleFlash]

Senate says hell no:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/290001-senate-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty