Bill Defunds United Nations If Arms Trade Treaty Is Adopted

Taking Aim at United Nations Gun Ban
Bill Defunds United Nations If Arms Trade Treaty Is Adopted
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington, DC –-( Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL-8) on Dec. 7 introduced the Second Amendment Protection Act (HR-3594) with 20 co-sponsors, a measure that would cut off all funding to the United Nations if the United States agrees to any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of American citizens.

In a letter to his colleagues seeking additional co-sponsors in the House, Walsh noted that “The United Nations has been trying for almost a decade now to move forward with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty poses a very real threat to the sovereignty of the United States and to our right to keep and bear arms—and this treaty is now moving forward with the support of the current administration.”

In late 2009, the US State Department reversed prior policy and announced that the US would back launching talks on the ATT. That version of the ATT is now expected to be finalized in 2012.

“The United States should never agree to a treaty that infringes on our constitutional rights, especially one that could implement sweeping gun control measures,” Walsh’s letter notes. “This treaty poses many dangers and could put serious pressure on the US to compromise on personal gun ownership rights. In a 2008 resolution on the treaty–adopted almost unanimously with only the US and Zimbabwe in opposition–the ‘highest possible standards’ of control were called for. “It is time for Congress to act to help ensure this treaty never sees the light of day. While the Senate is tasked with ratifying treaties, we (the House) must send a signal that this treaty is bad for America and bad for US gun rights.”

Almost 40 senators previously had written to the President and Secretary of State to express their opposition to the ATT. However, Walsh’s bill is the first in Congress to put financial brakes on any such treaty.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), which had helped develop the measure in cooperation with Walsh’s office, immediately applauded the Illinois congressman’s leadership in calling attention to the threat posed by the proposed binding small arms treaty that could affect the arms and ammunition commonly used by Americans for recreation and defense.

“The United Nations’ effort to adopt a global gun control initiative needs to be reined in,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “For too many years, bureaucrats in the United Nations have become far too cozy with international gun prohibition organizations, and Congressman Walsh’s legislation seems the best way to get their attention. We’ve been delighted and honored to be part of this effort.”

“It is an insult to United States sovereignty,” he added, “that the UN would be entertaining such measures while enjoying this country’s hospitality at its headquarters in New York City. It is the greatest irony, and perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy, for the United Nations to be discussing any treaty that might threaten our Second Amendment, because it has been the United States, with its citizen soldiers and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that has come to the world’s rescue not once, but twice in global conflicts.

“When diplomacy fails, it is time to close our checkbook,” Gottlieb said. “The Bush administration opposed such a treaty, but the Obama administration is moving forward with discussions on an international Arms Trade Treaty. It is up to Congress to put the brakes on such efforts and protect our national sovereignty, which has been protected and defended for more than two centuries because our citizens have the right, and the resources, to defend it.”

Walsh stated: “The Arms Trade Treaty is bad for America and bad for US gun rights. The Bush Administration had wisely opposed any effort to advance this treaty. Yet quickly into the first year of President Obama’s presidency, talks have now resumed and the treaty will soon be voted on next year.”

Alan Chwick, Editor
Nassau County News Flash
5 Brunella Street
Long Island, NY 11520
[email protected]
  • 11 thoughts on “Bill Defunds United Nations If Arms Trade Treaty Is Adopted

    1. Firehawk, how is it that a country can be stupid? Are you not an American? Not according to your point of view you're not. If you are a citizen of this nation, what parts of the rule of law do you advocate destroying besides the most important one of them all? Do you realize your statement is the right to free speech? Should we silence you or just those you disagree with? Does the government have compassion? You may think it does but you fail to understand that to prevent genocide requires armed citizens. No genocides occur where the citizens own firearms and can prevent it. All genocides require gun confiscation first., Source: Use your head. Why do you advocate we are tracked at all? You got so open minded your brains fell out? You probably think CO2 is a pollutant too. Rabbits lay eggs and if you wear a garlic necklace it will keep evil spirits away. "If you think you're not indoctrinated, it worked."

    2. Did any of you morons actually read the Chairman's paper of the Arms Trade Treaty? Of course not most of you are too illiterate to do so. It states nothing about infringing Member State's rights, in fact it guarantees sovereignty and the Nation's right to produce arms. The only thing it does is regulate and keep track of international sales, state by state.

      Christ this country is stupid.

    3. LET'S GET SERIOUS!!! Do any of you really believe the president will simply back away from this if the Senate approves treaty and the House invalidates it? He has ignored Congress repeatedly! Pasage of the treaty will give him the license he desires to start collecting our guns! He will ignore the Constitution, the law, and the will of the people…just as he has done for three years! He has his own agenda and has proven to us he's determined to run it to the end; specifically, he wants to disarm American gun owners. And, his time is running out. So is ours, I thnk. Make sure your Senators know what will happen if they vote to approve the treaty. Make sure your Represtatives know you expect them to IMPEACH the president should he act beyond his authority in this matter. And finally, by public demonstration if necessary, make sure the Supreme Court knows we expect them todeclare this treaty DOA should it actually be approved and the House can't overturn the approval. I don't think it would be out of order in this instance to also voice a warning long and loud that ANY attempt by ANYONE to take our guns in violation of the Constitution will undoubtedly lead to bolldshed…unlike the Katrina gun grab fiasco. I'm sure none of us wants that, be we also understand it's better than the alternative. Keep your wits about you, it's later than you think!

    4. The short of it is:

      The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

    5. Granted: No treaty supercedes the Constitution.

      However, is it realistic to believe that, were an Arms Traded Treaty confirmed by the senate, the Obama Administration would act as though they were limited by the Constitution (certainly with respect to 2A)? And especially since they, and the Congress, and SCOTUS, already act in contravention to said founding document?

    6. HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

      1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

      2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

      3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supersede the Constitution. Help to dispel this myth.

      “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
      The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

      “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

      “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

      “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

      “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

      Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.

      At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

      “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

      The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

      “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

      The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!!
      If anything it would take nothing short of a Constitutional Convention to Amend the Constitution in order to exact change the UN so desires. Nonetheless, even if ratified by the Senate, the treaty would exact nothing, and can be treated as null and void by the people.

    7. @Spense, "My question, is president Obama an idiot or does he think we are?" The answer is both as the question is two part and nether part prohibits the other part from being true.

    8. It's curious how President Obama, a so-called "expert" and teacher of the U.S. Constitution at institutions of higher learning hasn't condemned the gun ban treaty in question as unconstitutional. My question, is president Obama an idiot or does he think we are?

    9. Thomas Jefferson pointed to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States; or even if they enter into a treaty which is permitted by the Constitution but of which the House disapproves.

      Thomas Jefferson said:

      "We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not" –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329

      "I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt" – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41

      Our system of checks & balances is an good one, if we'll just learn to use it!

      Most probably believed only the Supreme court can declare a treaty unconstitutional, not true at all. The House of Representatives can kill an unlawful treaty.

    10. Article VI, Sec. 2, U.S. Constitution, says that all Treaties made “under the Authority of the United States” shall be part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.

      So, if a Treaty is made “under the Authority of the United States “, it is part of the supreme Law of the Land and is binding.

      Well, then what does the phrase, “under the Authority of the United States” mean? Our Framers tell us – it means that The Constitution must authorize the President and the Senate to act on the subject of the Treaty.

      Our beloved Thomas Jefferson correctly said that the federal government may not do by Treaty anything which The Constitution does not authorize it to do. Alexander Hamilton wrote to the same effect. So, if the President and the Senate ratified a U.N. Treaty banning guns, such would NOT become part of the supreme Law of the Land and be binding on future Presidents, because The Constitution does not authorize Congress or the President to ban guns. The Treaty would be a mere usurpation, and it would be the Duty of all Citizens to ignore it.

    Comments are closed.