Today is Monday, April 21, 2014rss RSS feed

By Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D. and John G. Malcolm

CZ Model 83 Handgun Frank Chmura Stock Connection Worldwide Newscom

CZ Model 83 Handgun – Frank Chmura Stock Connection Worldwide Newscom

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation

Washington, DC --(  On February 26 2013, the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which concludes that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” This conclusion neglects important facts about the treaty and the processes surrounding it, which we will explore in this four-part blog series.

The white paper asserts that the Second Amendment does not apply to most weapons within the scope of the ATT (which covers, among other things, combat aircraft), and that the Second Amendment is “generally inapplicable to arms exports.” These contentions are sound, but the more important issue is how the ATT might affect the importation of firearms under the Second Amendment.

The white paper argues that “import restrictions are constitutionally valid,” and we agree: The federal government does have the power to control the entry of goods into the United States. But the draft ATT, in Article 7(2), requires nations signed on to the treaty to “adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use.” The Treaty therefore goes beyond import restrictions by requiring signatories to prevent the domestic diversion of imports.

By ignoring this, the white paper also ignores a broad point about the U.S. Unlike most nations, the U.S. has both the Second Amendment and a federal system. The latter fact means that, in some policy areas, it is difficult to draft multilateral treaties that the U.S. can accept, because most nations do not have a federal system.

For example, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child covers matters that in the U.S. are the responsibility of the states, localities, and families—not the national government, which is one reason no administration has transmitted it to the Senate.

The same is true for the ATT. The draft ATT is built on the assumption that all nations have the same structure, and can therefore implement the treaty in the same way. But in the U.S., the federal government shares responsibility for regulating firearms with the states, in both cases as controlled by the Second Amendment. Thus, the states are partly responsible for preventing firearms from reaching “the illicit market” or “unauthorized end use.”

Further, unlike other countries, our Constitution limits the authority of the federal government to insist that state officials act as its agent for purposes of carrying out federal policy. Thus, the ATT is about more than the control of imports. Worse, it is based on an assumption about the role and powers of national governments that is not true of the federal and Constitutionally limited U.S. system.

About Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is the top conservative think tank in the United States. Their blog starts your morning off right with “The Morning Bell,” a blogpost that brings you up to speed on current issues, and then updates you throughout the day on a variety of issues concerning conservatives. Visit:

About Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.:
Ted R. Bromund studies and writes on British foreign and security policies and Anglo-American relations as senior research fellow in The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. He also explains why America must defend and advance its unique leadership role in the world. Visit: to read more.

Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by - – The Shooting Sports News source.
  • 2 User comments to “Arms Trade Treaty and the 2nd Amendment: Answering the American Bar Association”

    1. NOTHING the UN does is Constitutionally acceptable…you are not following the U.S Constitution if you agree with what the bar ass’s say…Any agreement with the UN is anti-freedom and therefore anti Constitutional…as in my rights are creator given not some communist organization sponsored rights…if the HF sides with the UN…then it is a traitor to the Constitution..imho

    2. Bill Baker on March 23, 2013 at 12:03 AM said:

      Your anger at the HF for being a traitor suggests that you responded to the article but didn’t read it. The Heritage Foundation was quoting the American Bar Association, not agreeing with it. But keep jumping article to article and posting random comments, you go man

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • James: San Antonio will lose on this one in the long run in court. Henry will no doubt be convicted in city court by...
      • Chuck Johnson: This 2013 Rebate was a scam. We sent all the proper paperwork and barcodes required on time and they...
      • Jim: Hummmm, the government has declared a three mile no fly zone around the Bundy ranch area. Little drones do not...
      • Rich: Oh yeah the Rav4 my neighbors daughter just bought one…cute little car. Maybe next time do a write up on...
      • RG: The man is a complete moran, a fool and a scammer, tried to scam multiple companies in the USA posing as a...
    • maximum
      Login with Facebook: Log In
      Powered by Sociable!
    • Facebook Activity

    • Google+ Direct Connect

    Copyright 2014 Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Sign up for the Ammoland Daily Digest

    * indicates required
    Daily Digest is a daily recap of Firearms industry news, 2nd Amendment politics , and product articles delivered to the inbox. Stay informed to keep your Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    Yes, I want the Monthly email newsletter subscription to Ammoland so I can get a single newsletter once a month on the hot new products from the Firearms Industry!