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]
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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… Read more »


[sarcasm on]

Well said, Captain Diplomacy.

[sarcasm off]


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.


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.… Read more »


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.

Mike Settles

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?


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… Read more »


@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.


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?


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… Read more »


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… Read more »