I kind of feel like a broken record on this, but it would seem as if a certain cadre of gun owners and second amendment advocates are unable to be convinced that a proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty has nothing at all to do with their own ability to bear guns. Chuck Norris pens the latest iteration of this paranoid view in the Politico. (Seriously, Politico?)
An Arms Trade Treaty doesn’t sound bad in concept — isn’t that what the U.N. is for? The problem, however, is what U.N. diplomats consider to be “arms.” To you and me, the word means tanks, fighter jets, missiles, that kind of thing. But look no further than the U.N. plaza to see what the silk-stocking set considers “arms.” There you will find a bronze statue of a simple .38 revolver — with its barrel tied into a knot.
Remember no other country in the world enjoys America’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is why the vast majority of U.N. diplomats believe that an arms trade treaty must reach into your gun safe and mine. There is little question that this treaty would require additional restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.
This is not only false — it is the opposite of true. At the instance of the Obama administration the seventh paragraph of the preamble to the founding document of the ATT says:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.
That principal was not agreed to by “vast majority” of UN member states. It was adopted by consensus, meaning that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY agreed to it.
What’s actually ironic is that the treaty basically aims to do exactly what Norris says he wishes it would: to bring “other nations’ patchy regulations” in line with the regulatory regime of the US. Jeff Abramson, the coordinator of the pro-treaty Control Arms Secretariat, told TPM, “[Second Amendment-citing] critics say the sky will fall, but the things the treaty suggests already exist in the US. It’s hard to see where the US would need to make changes to its existing national laws.”
Well said. Somehow, though, I don’t think we are going to get through to him on this one.