*The article's title has also been updated to reflect the verification of Kerry's signature of the treaty. It was formerly titled "John Kerry will Sign UN Small Arms Treaty Wednesday."
We were told that Barack Obama would more than likely sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty in August, during Congress' recess. That failed to materialize. However, here we are near the end of September and word came out yesterday that Secretary of State John Kerry will be placing his signature to the treaty on Wednesday.
The Associated Press reports:
American officials say Secretary of State John Kerry will sign a landmark treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar global arms trade during the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting this week.
The officials said Kerry will sign the Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, initiating an uncertain ratification process in the U.S. Senate. Some lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to the United States becoming a party to the treaty. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be identified as the source of information about Kerry's plans.
The U.S. is the world's largest arms dealer and its accession is seen as critical to the treaty's success, although many of the world's other top arms exporters and importers have not signed the document.
This document has been long feared by pro-gun groups and individuals as an end run around the Second Amendment. I have even questioned if it gives foreign troops the authority to enforce the treaty on US soil.
Freedom Outpost's Lorri Anderson also produced a document, which many believe is authentic, that could very well be a disarmament plan for America by the United Nations.
As a result of fear that this treaty could open the US gun market to international regulation, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gotlieb wrote:
The uncertainty begins in the discussion of small arms. Where will the regulations on our small arms start, and where will they stop? They are even trying to include ammunition regulations in the Arms Trade Treaty! Will the United Nations try to impose international licensing requirements, an international registry, or international?
The last negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty took place in July 2012, just four months before the Presidential election. Obama did not want to take a big stance for global gun control just months before his re-election but now he has made it clear he is for total gun control. He also told voters he would not be re-visiting negotiations for an Arms Trade treaty but here we are.
Since his re-election it has become clearer than ever what is at the top of his agenda; taking our guns away! The Obama Administration has been exploiting tragedies since the election to push gun control at the city, state, federal, and now GLOBAL level.
Our Senate took a stance before the Presidential election when 51 of them wrote Obama a letter saying they would not support an Arms Trade Treaty. We must let our entire U.S. Senate know we do not support international gun control. They must not ratify this international treaty.
Kerry's signature doesn't actually put the treaty into effect. It must also be ratified by 2/3 majority vote in the United States Senate. However, remember that back in March the Senate voted 53-46
to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The same Senate went on to defeat the tyrannical gun control legislation of the Obama administration and the Democrats.
The dangerous part of Kerry signing the treaty is that it will lie dormant in committee until there is a majority that will ratify it, or a future president, in essence, "unsigns" the treaty.
Additionally, it only takes ¾ majority vote of member nations to amend the treaty. This means that once it is ratified other nations could determine how it could be amended, and that would also affect the United States.
Currently, the treaty does not seem to regulate gun ownership in the US. However, it could immediately affect the availability and cost of foreign made guns and ammo if it is ratified.
The treat also requires that 50 member nations sign and ratify it for it to take effect.
UPDATE: John Kerry has signed the treaty. This just in from Fox News:
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.
"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong," he said. "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes."
The NRA also reacted to the signing, calling it a threat to "individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme" and saying the organization would fight against these "blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American."
The NRA also added:
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.
Notably, the ATT includes "small arms and light weapons" within its scope, which covers firearms owned by law-abiding citizens. Further, the treaty urges recordkeeping of end users, directing importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including “end use or end user documentation” for a “minimum of ten years.” Each country is to “take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms.” Data kept on the end users of imported firearms is a de-facto registry of law-abiding firearms owners, which is a violation of federal law. Even worse, the ATT could be construed to require such a registry to be made available to foreign governments.