The UN and your guns the ATT

This particular post came from a disagreement with a person in the comment section of one of the many news articles that I stumble across. Mind you never had really looked into it because well I remember a debate on the issue coming up years ago on the UN and forcing us to comply, even at the time I found laughable for several reasons. Namely how they could if we didn't want to what were they going to do come and beat up a country with the second largest standing army? Not to mention if all they did when Iraq and Iran misbehave is introduce sanctions it makes it highly unlikely, even improbable anything would happen. I always am amused at how people can let people spin them a story and they will cling to it even when all the evidence is to the contrary especially if guns are involved. So the troll gave me opportunity to actually look around, and mind you it took some digging because this conspiracy seems to have taken a firm hold and it is so ridiculous few have even bothered to point out how it couldn't happen.

""Americans also shouldn’t be quick to believe the UN’s claims that the ATT will not infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. A report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” recognizes, on the one hand, that states have a right to “individual or collective self-defense” and that “the ATT does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons.” Yet on the other hand it states that because of the problem of diversion, or the transfer of weapons to the illicit market, “the arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” " http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/11/13/will_the_arms_trade_treaty_suppress_second_amendment_rights
AND:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/23/5-fundamental-flaws-in-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/
So, so wrong. You can research it yourself.http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/ "

So I went and read the articles and then went to some moderate and liberal websites to help balance out the far right opinions contained in the provided links she gave. So I framed my response based on the info that I was able to locate.

"Okay I read your articles and even read the ATT pages you

provided from the UN. What little common themes that exist in the information does not read all that differently than International Financial Reporting Standards.

Now like the IFRS this treaty will not have any effect within American borders for three very specific reasons.

1. It is dealing with the international trade of guns. So unless you are planning on selling weapons to someone outside of the US it will not effect you. As it stands now each country has it's own rules on who can sell guns what countries guns can be sold to and so on ad nauseum. This would provide an international standard for trade between countries, which is why several countries hate it since they make a great deal selling off old weapons and providing them to everyone and their brother for the right price, even our government on occasion. It has nothing to do with internal standards but international. So unless you are selling weapons on the black market then I think your safe.

2.Now this is the most important part of the whole thing. The president actually is not that powerful despite the Bush era of adding to the presidential powers. All international treaties the U.S. agrees to require the approval of two-thirds of the senators present before the treaties can be ratified. And even then on the unlikely chance it somehow got through that body which I seriously doubt you could but if it did happen it would get struck down by the Supreme Court. Which according to a great article at factcheck.org points out, the supreme court "ruled just four years ago that the District of Columbia’s own ban on handguns violated residents’ Second Amendment rights." You also have a previous ruling on international treaties of Reid v. Covert which held that the US constitution supersedes that of international treaties ratified by the Senate. And even more important is the Medellín v. Texas ruling says that the President can not enforce international treaties unless they comply with the constitution and/or the Senate. So the application domestically would fail since it would violate the 2nd Amendment.

3. And finally it has to approved by all the member states, and since Russia is sticking to it's guns I just don't see it happening. Not to mention it will take forever to get all the countries to all approve of the final draft. If you just read the views of the 46 or so participating states (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2FCONF.217%2F2&Lang=E)

they are probably no where near coming up with anything all of them can agree on.

Here is the fact check link and the Supreme court rulings are available on wikipedia. And of course thehttp://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

Apparently this was not enough evidence which given she was a troll that is not something new. So she trots out what I can only assume is her Pièce de résistance that will put me in my place. Shame she chose a very bad one and one I was expecting since it was the same silly one I remember from back in the day. One that I was against back in the day when I still was part of the Republican party so I am familiar with it.

Troll:
Right. "How could the gun-grabbing Obama Regime impose this clearly anti-2nd Amendment, Treaty-mandated arms registration scheme on the American people without the Senate first giving its advice and consent?

“When a nation signs a treaty it is obligated to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intent not to become a party to the treaty.” (1) This is language from Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted in 1969, 111 nations
have ratified the Vienna Convention, a treaty which has become known as the “Treaty of Treaties” and is “…widely recognized as the authoritative guide vis-à-vis the formation and effects of treaties.” (2)
Many versed in international law argue that the “object and purpose” language of the Vienna Convention means that “…a nation that has signed a treaty is prohibited either from violating the treaty altogether or from violating the treaty’s core or important provisions.” (1) Although the United Nations have taken great pains to make certain that no specific Treaty language has made its way to the American public, a Spanish representatives made clear his own “object and purpose” when he said the UN “… will be happy to honestly contribute to reduce their number (weapons), [and] to regulate buying and sell of arms…” If this is what the completed Treaty hopes to achieve—and we can bet it will be—Barack Obama will have signed onto the most anti-gun rights document in the nation’s history. (3)" http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/

Here was my response though it is pretty elementary and given the reasons trotted out in defense of Bush's refusal to recognize the ICC you would think she would know why the Vienna Convention can't be used. Heck I even traced it back to the place where she got the idea that the treaty had been ratified and therefore used.

Me:

Well that would work if the Vienna Convention had it been ratified by the Senate. Unfortunately it hasn't so it can not be used to force the issue.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm

Or scroll down on the UN page and it shows that it was signed on April 25, 1970 but has not been ratified we are one of 15 countries that have yet to ratify it.

http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=UNTSONLINE&mtdsg_no=XXIII%7E1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en

To give you a recent example of another Treaty that was signed but not ratified would be the Rome Convention. If you will recall it caused a bit of a dust up during the Bush Jr. Presidency.

"Although the U.S. originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on December 31, 2000, and signed the treaty but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification. On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration announced that it was nullifying the U.S. signature of the treaty. The main objections to the ICC offered by the Bush administration were interference with national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions. President Barack Obama has taken no action to change the U.S. position on the ICC he inherited from G.W. Bush."

http://docbonn.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/why-doesnt-the-u-s-recognize-international-law-ask-doc-bonn/

Now given the way you are interpreting the Vienna Convention in theory if it had been ratified then the International community could have made a serious issue of President Clinton having signed the Rome Convention. However since it had not been ratified it could not be used to force the issue and trust me there are alot of countries that would like to try several members of the Bush Administration for war crimes. But with the nullification of the signature it is a moot issue.

So to sum up for your scenario to occur we either have to get the Senate to ratify the Vienna Convention. Which given it's ramifications for Americas sovereignty not to mention all the members of the Bush Jr Administration who would then be subject to the ICC I doubt that it will be ratified.

Or the other route we have to get two thirds of the Senate to agree to the treaty, when I doubt you could get half of them to agree on what color the sky is on any given day. Even further they would have to ratify a treaty that I would say well over 50% of American citizens would have issues with, and given politicians like to be re-elected makes it even harder to get them to go along with anything that would be less than popular. But we will play the billion to one odds that he could somehow force it through the Senate. We once again have the Supreme Court hurdle and you can bet it would run through the courts like wild fire and the Supreme Court would do it's job and rule it unconstitutional and that would be that.

The response back was not very nice and I will not repeat because it was all libelous theories on my parent’s marital status when I was born and as well my mother's profession. Of course she is entitled to her opinion I suppose. I just don't get how when confronted with facts some people cannot deal with them without resorting to name calling. Even better at least make an attempt to give some sort of actual proof. My guess is she is a birther as well. I just don't get how anyone could live with that much fear in their life without getting an ulcer. But like all irrational arguments it seems too often they forget if they really wanted to do these things why go about it in such a roundabout way.