There are several problems encountered when representatives of the United States sign any (and I mean any) treaty with the United Nations. Treaties can only be signed (and then ratified, or not) with other sovereign states (or countries). This immediately exempts the UN because it is not a sovereign state, though it is treated as if it is one. The reality is that the UN is in no way a sovereign state at all. Pretending it is does not make it so, unless you're a "progressive."
Next, according to the Constitution, the Senate (and only the Senate) has the ability to ratify a treaty that the US enters into with another (or group of) sovereign state. Because Secretary of State John Kerry signed the document, it will simply go to the Senate for ratification, instead of being rejected out of hand since the UN is not a viable sovereign state.
Once the treaty arrives to the Senate, it could be ratified. If it is ratified, then we move the more difficult part of the equation. What does this mean for Americans? It could mean several things.
First, let's say the Senate ratifies this counterfeit treaty. What then? Our federal government would then begin spending millions of dollars to create another department within the federal government that would be designed to oversee and ensure that this treaty is implemented within the United States so that we are compliant with the tenets of the Small Arms Trade Treaty.
You can see the entire text of the Small Arms Trade Treaty and decide for yourself what it is saying. It is 122 pages in length, but the English version of the treaty starts on page 22 and concludes on page 38.
One of the first things it would begin doing would be to essentially, create a national gun registry. If ratified by the Senate, it will be argued that this treaty trumps the 2nd Amendment and the US must abide by it. In essence, we will be told (first) that this treaty has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Eventually, when more people realize what the treaty means, the federal government will simply point out that we are beholden to uphold the treaty since it was ratified by Senate (if that occurs). Nonetheless, the treaty really does open the door for the federal government to create a national gun registry.
If you don’t believe me, then take a gander at Article 11 – Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency. There are no less than five sections dealing with how to record, the type of record keeping each state should keep, what type of report to produce and when it needs to be turned into the powers that be over at the UN. Another boondoggle for the Federal government at the expense of the taxpayer. There are other problems with it as well, if for no reason other than its ambiguous language.
Small Arms & Light Weapons?
The only real part of it that might apply to civilian weapons is Article 2, Section H, referring to Small Arms and Light Weapons. It’s not defined that I could determine from the text.
All of the weaponry mentioned in the treaty is referred to as Conventional Arms. All of it essentially references international trade and shipments of conventional arms.
In one of the earlier drafts of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty, the following text was included in the Preamble:
"Recognizing the legitimate international trade and 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;"
That text has been changed in the treaty that John Kerry signed to reflect what is shown here:
"Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, and historical activities, where such trade, ownership and use are protected by law"
Here is the seeming reality. According to the treaty itself, no changes can be made in the treaty for six years. After that, individual states can offer amendments that would be voted on by those member states that signed onto the treaty. Changes would be made based on the voting of those individual members.
As far as I can tell - at this point - the treaty does not necessarily go after citizens' guns. If the Senate ratifies this treaty though, six years later someone could offer an amendment that would go after arms owned by citizens. Our Senate would have nothing to say about it at that point.
The other problem of course is that the Obama administration is not known for following the law. Obama pretty much does what he wants and even when courts rule against him, he tends not to notice.
I'm thinking that even if our Senate fails to ratify this treaty, it would not at all surprise me if Obama simply went ahead with it anyway. He would use Executive Orders to make this treaty effective for America in spite of what the people and the Senate had to say about it.