Info on the Arms Trade Treaty

Texas State Rifle Association
Texas State Rifle Association

Houston, Tx –-( The correct name for the decades old treaty that would control the import and export of all weaponry and ammunition, excluding nuclear, is Arms Trade Treaty, and not the U.N. Small Arms Treaty; although the provisions that include “small arms” cause American citizens the greatest concern.

Good news/Bad news!!!
Treaties with our country do not take effect unless ratified by the Senate and there is no exception. Even with a slight Democratic majority, there should be enough pro-gun Senate votes to stop this measure.

Other good news is that, as currently drafted, the provisions should not touch your existing gun safe or collection but there are registry and transfer provisions for new imports and/or new exports. This is included although such a registry is in direct contradiction with US law which bars any sort of gun registry.

President Obama should oppose the current draft based on this conflict in existing U.S. law if nothing else.

However, President Obama could give a greenlight to UN Ambassador Susan Rice to allow the treaty to be finalized. This would be the next step, the final version which has been blocked by our government for the past 10 years. Talks on the issue resume in the U.N. in March.

A final draft of this treaty could then be ratified by other countries, by key nations that trade with the U.S.

Consider where Glocks, Sigs, Berettas, Benellis, and other popular firearms are manufactured. Gun makers in those countries could decide that the new recordkeeping regulations are too onerous and costly to export to the U.S. At the very least, prices will go through the ceiling.

We must keep pressure on the current Administration to continue to block any forward progress on this treaty.

Let your voice be heard. We want no movement on the Arms Trade Treaty.

Office of the President, Contact Information

Check “Tripp Talk” soon for updates and explanations on bills filed before the Texas Legislature. A special thanks to staff at Texas Senator John Cornyn's office for ongoing Arms Treaty information.

And as always,

Keep the faith,

Alice Tripp
Texas State Rifle Association

The Mission of the Texas State Rifle Association is to protect and defend the inalienable rights of the individual Texan to acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership and enjoy the right to lawful use of firearms for self preservation, for the defense of family and property and the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberties of the people. Visit:

  • 6 thoughts on “Info on the Arms Trade Treaty

    1. In indiana, we used to say “Sure, we’ll give up out guns. Just let us give you the ammo first.”
      More seriously, I can imagine LOTS of guns & ammo going underground and being dispersed if a worst case scenario with the proposed ATT occurred. Also, just who is going to go and confiscate our weapons? If only 1-2% of gun owners resisted enough to produce 1 casualty during a confiscation attempt, that would equate to more than 100% of the US active duty military personnel. The math does not look favorable for potential domestic enemies of the constitution.

    2. Who among all the respondents to this site is the ultimate authority? Mr. Ford’s treatise sounds and looks authoritative, but by what background that he may have does he know all this for certain? I’d certainly like to believe that we are “safe” from the ATT but knowing the present administration and many in Congress this may not be true. I can only visualize massive civil disobedience in the case that the president announces a decree that we are henceforth under the ATT and it WILL be obeyed. Any guns anyone may own could be confiscated before the issue is settled by the Supreme Court, IF in fact the Court gets a chance to rule. So my mind is still open, I am not 100% convinced, Mr. Ford, but will not dispute you until some authority can definitively say so. In the case that the ATT prevails, the value of all guns will plummet into the toilet, which also amounts to a THEFT of private property, for which nobody will be compensated.


      There is no need for any of this bull stuff, the traitors and fools in Washington cannot change the Constitution no matter how much they would like to:


      Anything repugnant to the Constitution is VOID Marbury V Madison 5 U.S. 137

      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. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. 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, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
      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.”
      Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it.
      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 !!! CASE CLOSED. Do not believe the lies many want you to believe, it’s propaganda!

      The president cannot alter or modify the Constitution!

      in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), to wit:

      Congress … cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

      Congress does however have exclusive territorial legislative jurisdiction over property/territory owned by or ceded to the UNITED STATES.

      Per Title 28 chapter 5 notes;

      Sections 81–131 of this chapter show the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945.


      The inclusion of Section 88 District of Columbia within the range “Sections 81- 131 of this chapter” makes the “territorial composition of districts and divisions” necessarily subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. Consideration of the two sections that represent Alaska and Hawaii in 1945 and the section that represents Puerto Rico confirms territorial composition of the districts and divisions to be limited to the territory over which the United States of America has exclusive jurisdiction.

      The United States of America has exclusive jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. the seat of government, so the territorial composition of United States district court in the District of Columbia must be the entirety of Washington County. The rest of the Chapter 5 United States district courts would have districts whose territorial composition would be limited to the territory within the counties of the district subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. The DA and the United States Attorney have jurisdiction over the same territory, but it is NOT the entire COUNTY.

      territorial property can be a national park, military installation or federal enclave. Enclaves such as Federal buildings, including correctional facilities, federal court and federal office buildings, penitentiaries, post offices, and buildings such as National Institute of Health; the federal clinical research facility in Bethesda, Maryland, managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. etc.

      Congressional legislation and presidential edicts are binding in and on the aforementioned places and districts!

      You have rights, but only IF you can assert them intelligently and vigorously!

      In the USA any treaty in violation of the Constitution is null and void from date of inception.

      The US Constitution does speak to treaties under a separate governing principle. In fact, the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, §2, as interpreted by the Supreme Court is superior to any [*1009] state constitution or state statute (BALDWIN v. FRANKS 1887) and recognized by states courts in MISSOURI v. ARNOLD (1941).

      additionally, with regard to federal statutes, lex posterior (giving precedence to newer law) applies (COOK v. U.S. 1933).

      Treaty nullification can, therefore, be effected by statute, if one follows LEM MOON SING v. U.S., (1895).

      Following this line, would Martin say that Congress can nullify the Constitution (which of course it can via the amending process found in Article V)?

      The Court also noted in DOE v. BRADEN (1853) that the Constitution is superior to treaties, but federal courts can not nullify treaties even if there is a conflict between the two agents as found in FELLOW v. BLACKSMITH (1857).

      Perhaps the strongest Court statement is found in REID v. COVERT (1957), with the decision that no treaty can override the Constitution.




      Thank you,

      Robert E. Ford

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *