Are Foreign Troops Given Authority To Enforce The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty On US Soil?

As Barack Obama prepares to sign the United Nation's Small Arms Treaty when Congress concludes its summer session, some have wondered whether or not it gives authority to use foreign troops on US soil to enforce the treaty.

If you wish to understand just what is entailed in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), you need look no further than Article 15 of the treaty (Click here for a downloadable PDF or click here for the online version). Article 15 reads:

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

It provides for foreign "assistance to implement the Treaty," and it mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. Notice this includes legal, financial, technical, as well as "material" assistance to enforce the treaty.

Should the US sign onto the treaty and it be ratified, it would make us responsible for helping in the implementation in states that request such assistance. It's not like we don't have enough going on without having to deal with this nonsense.

Dave Workman of the Examiner wrote back in July 2012, "Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law."

Workman then pointed out, "However, Versnel-Gottlieb notes that the proposed treaty is still getting support from the United Kingdom and the French delegation let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned "weapons." Gun rights activists will quickly note that this has not worked too well for the British."

We are already aware of the United Nations sordid history of attempting general and complete disarmament, including individual arms that are legally owned.

The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the "SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community" is, according to the UN's own disarmament website, a "regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms."

The treaty specifically recognizes only "lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law."

We already know that American troops were used to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina. You can see the video evidence here and here. At least Staff Sergeant Joshua May refused to confiscate guns from people during Hurricane Katrina.

However, Article 15 of the ATT makes one wonder whether or not foreign troops would be sent in to confiscate law abiding American citizens' weapons.

First thing is first though. Barack Obama must sign the treaty and then it must be ratified, which a Senate resolution has already been passed stating that will not happen, thanks in part to the work of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Also, 130 members of Congress recently sent a letter to both Obama and Kerry opposing the treaty. More than that, we must find a way to ultimately kill this treaty even if it is signed by Obama. Otherwise it lingers in the background waiting for an opportune time to be ratified by a completely radical leftist Senate.

With that said, I'm sure if Congress wouldn't put an end to such a thing, that many Americans would be more than willing to welcome foreign troops, under the UN banner, in a hailstorm of bullets of various calibers.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



  • Wayne Washburn

    Uh huh .........a ' King ' tried to rule this country once before . That one also brought " contractors " hordes of professional murderers for money . Our ancestors didn't send them home in body bags back then ......they buried the sonsabitches where they fell .

  • freshideaguy

    I'm remembering the "rumors" of several months ago about Janet Napolitano's negotiations with Russia to clear the way for 15,000 Russian troops to be stationed in Sector III, (Washington, D.C. and surrounding states), to provide national security assistance for the "regime".

    Coupled with the huge DHS purchases of ammo, a large portion of which of the caliber that NATO forces use, and not US forces.

    Whatever happened about that?

  • Swedeheart3
  • Joe

    honestly, I'd love to have some UN come knock at my door; I would just laugh; then proceed with a sparta kick down my stairs. No violence needed for these idiots; they're such a joke lol

  • 42nd Highlander

    Not a problem. I roll my own cartridges, and shoot a .69 cal. Charleville musket on a regular basis. I can pick the wings off a fly. Come & try and get mine if ye dare.

  • f8tule

    Welcome to the second shot heard around the world... except this time it will be world war 3 if another nation comes in.. that is nothing short than an act of war..

  • Iamacitizen2

    Months ago I read an article that said O was head of the UN security dept. Has anyone got the knowhow to find out if this is true? If it is true in our Constitution it clearly states no Pres i dent is allowed to hold any other position period while serving as Pres i dent. If he is holding this position of head of UN security then it's over folks for every single U.S. citizen and the States we reside in. There would be no contest for small armed citizens against foreign entities and the powerful arsenals of equipment (tanks, drones, etc.) that they more than likely have strategically placed in various federally protected forests and smaller airports nationwide. Good luck with that.
    Don't forget the video's of train after train after train loads of military vehicles of ALL types appearing nationwide this last year.
    God bless America

  • char51

    where are the protesters on this. bozo, needs to go. this is not in this country bes interest. throw the u.n. out ofthis country. and stop paying them trillions of dollars for nothing.

  • patriotrenegade

    turn the un into a casino or bulldoze it into the East River. Egypt owes NYC $16mil in parking tickets.

  • ARMYOF69

    If wearing a foreign non American uniform, I shall treat them as enemy invaders. If Not wearing any uniform, I shall treat them as hostile criminals. The end result WILL be the same, a small loss of my plumbum.

    • AD

      That's okay, they carry 7.62 which is what I need anyway

  • Average Joe

    We will have to make it to costly for them to keep trying. Just like WW11 maryanna turkey shoot. You can never win A war when you lose 5 for every one you take

  • lakeside227

    According to the Supremacy Clause "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." Where do we find what authority the United States has? The Constitution. Article I Section 8 enumerates ALL the powers delegated to Congress, they have no authority to make laws or treaties UNLESS they pertain to those very specific, narrow, and limited powers. The 10th Amendment makes very clear that unless a power is specifically delegated to the federal government, that power is reserved to the states and the People. Regulating gun sales/ownership is NOT a delegated power of the federal government, therefore, the federal government has no authority to enter into a treaty pertaining to gun sales/purchases/ownership.

    "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."

    "Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):

    …If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify…."

    Two quotes from Jefferson:

    "In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]

    Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]"

    We all know that the federal government has long been going beyond its Constitutional authority and has been backed up by SCOTUS decisions. What too many people DON'T know, is that SCOTUS has NO delegated authority to expand its or Congress' limited authority. They have been doing for over 200 years because the People have allowed them to. No law, treaty, federal agency rule/regulation, court ruling, or precedent is above the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law and the Constitution says they can't do it. Remember "...the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify…." SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of our laws, the PEOPLE are.

    People, we need to redress the injuries done to our Constitution by the federal government.

    • AD

      Have you met our president? He doesn't let silly little things like LAWS and CONSTITUTIONS get in the way of "progress" and anyone that brings this to his attention is a "racist" or an "extremist" for not believing his "vision"

      Great post, by the way.

    • lakeside227

      Thank you.

      I find his belief that he can 'act without Congress' to be particularly chilling. He really does not believe he has any limitations on what he can do - no matter what our laws and Constitution say.

  • junkmailbin

    defund the UN, throw the whole lot out of the US

  • Timur


  • Jacqueline Lynn

    Clinton and Obama helped set this up! WE will be paying new taxes to support the "less wealthy states" in enforcing these regulations. Regulations opposed to our own laws and Constitution.

    • John Patriot

      Blue helmets make very good targets.

  • rangerrebew

    Check out PL 87-297, a law on the books since the Kennedy and renewed every two years. The general thrust is to disarm Americans and give our military to the United Nitwits. Does that sound like the concern in the article? I'm not sure the treaty needs to be signed as the law to do what it wants is already in place.

  • Ontherightintampa

    Careful reading of this document gives ANY U.N. member the same rights. It deals with transfer of HARDWARE, not 'people' to operate such equipment. Boiled down this section really says very little for so many words. So typical of of the U.N. to mince words and say nothing....

    • Buck Torre

      transfer my ass they ll get lots of transferring from the hot barrel of my rifles-any any other improvised weapons we might have-they know we are not fools and we are quite capable of fighting a war-thats why they havent implemented anything yet(yet) i feel that time will come-I hope we get a heads up first-ATTN:LEO AND MILITARY YOU DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY ORDERS THAT CONFLICT WITH YOUR DUTIES TO UPHOLD YOUR OATHS TO THIS REPUBLIC EVER

    • SpudPicker

      Remember the Nuremberg trials. Soldiers that obeyed unlawful orders to kill civilians in the German death camps were considered just as guilty as the people that gave them the orders.
      Being ordered to do it is not an excuse!

    • John Patriot

      We will take what they come with and use it on them to protect our country, our constitution and our flag.

  • Kenneth Stout

    Collecting our arms is enough for a revolution in the U.S. and Foreign troops better remember to duck when there fired upon.