Why The UN Arms Trade Treaty Violates The Constitution
The UN Arms Trade Treaty should alarm any liberty-loving
citizen. Every UN treaty requires the participating country to turn over its
sovereignty regarding that particular issue. An agreement with the UN removes
the autonomy of the nation and the independence of the people to make their own
laws free of UN control and dictate. The UN Arms Trade Treaty is no exception.
It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and
without the nation. Patrick Henry gave this clear warning in his day,
jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches
that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine
times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble
the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did
you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no
power at all.”
We should guard with jealous attention and be very suspicious
of this present attempt to remove our public liberty.
The first problem with the treaty is that it uses some
incredibly awkward wording, and the meaning of sentences can be very difficult
to understand because the structure is so bad. It is as if someone who holds
English as a third or fourth language wrote the English version, but I digress.
I want to highlight just SOME of the problems with this treaty, and there are
The very first provision in the preamble should be enough to
make Americans abandon the entire treaty.
The States Parties to this Treaty,
- Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the
Charter of the United Nations;
This might not cause alarm to the average person who has
never read the UN Charter. But those who have will understand that we are
already on shaky ground. It is simply not possible for the UN charter and the US
Constitution to co-exist without one being abrogated to the other. Consider just
the preamble to the UN Charter:
The Purposes of
the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and
to that end: to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,
and in conformity with the principles of justice and
Therefore, each party to the treaty must write laws
regulating the sale and possession of firearms consistent with those standards.
So, each law must guarantee that the sale and possession of guns are only
allowed where the GOVERNMENT can ensure that such activity will not be a “threat
to peace” or cause “breaches of peace” and these laws MUST conform to
international law. How does international law define “threat to peace”? What
activity will cause “breaches of peace”? Compliance with this treaty now
obligates our Congress, when drafting laws, to comply with international law?
Seriously? This makes our Congress bound by a global democracy and not a
Constitutional Republic based upon the consent of the governed. This move toward
global governance is antithetical to the Constitution.
Another principle of the UN Charter requires Congress, when
drafting these laws, to focus on international cooperation. What is the purpose
to be considered when doing so? According to the Charter, these laws must solve
international problems of economic, social, cultural, humanitarian character and
promote human rights.
So wrapped up in just the first sentence of the treaty; every
law Congress makes to comply with this treaty must regulate the sale and
possession of firearms to:
Act collectively with and in compliance with
Ensure that firearms will not be used as a “threat to
Ensure that firearms will not be used to invoke a “breach
Solve international problems.
These requirements create a “government knows best” frame of
mind regarding who can possess firearms and how they will be used. This is
completely antithetical to the foundation of America and the understanding of
our right to keep and bear arms. If you doubt this statement, please
read my previous writing discussing the true understanding of our second
amendment. There is no way that Congress will be able to meet these criteria and
maintain the protection of our second amendment rights.
Section 4 of the preamble of the UN Arms Trade
Treaty makes the following requirement of those under the treaty:
Parties to this Treaty,
need to prevent, combat and ERADICATE the illicit trade of
conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and
unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime.
Congress must write laws to regulate “small arms and light
weapons” based upon international standards and must also PREVENT illicit trade
and unauthorized use. That word “illicit” is not necessarily synonymous with
“illegal.” If they had wanted to say “illegal”, meaning based upon established
laws, surely they would have said so. They did not, however, and by stating
“illicit” instead of “illegal” they are applying a subjective standard, not
codified by law but established by a “common
custom, rule, or standard.”
The UN will dictate to Congress and to the citizens of
this nation, who will keep arms, what arms they will keep, and for what purpose
they will keep them, all based upon subjective standards and international law.
Again, there is NO WAY Congress can meet this standard and still uphold their
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ratifying this
treaty will be turning over our government to foreign rule and would be an act
insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me,
fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake,
since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most
baneful foes of republican government. ~George Washington, Farewell Address
Proponents may attempt to argue this treaty is only to create
laws and regulations governing foreign trade and commerce. That would be a lie
and the articles of this treaty directly contradict that assertion. Article 9
requires each government to take appropriate measures, within national
laws and regulations, to control the buying and selling of firearms within
that nation. We have just stepped out of the realm of the international and
are now imposing laws controlling the people within their own country.
How is each government supposed to control this buying and
The Treaty requires the establishment of a “national control
system.” Great…another federal bureaucracy!
Each State Party
shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures
necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate
competent national authorities in order to have an effective,
transparent, and predictable national control system regulating the
transfer of conventional arms.
What will this new federal agency do to comply with this
They will be required by the UN to collect “all relevant
information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be
transferred and the verified end-users in the country or final
destination.” They will make sure “all appropriate and relevant information is
provided, upon request…to verif[y] the end users.” And this bureaucracy
will create “adequate measures that will allow them…to monitor and control”
How will this bureaucracy “monitor and control the
The Treaty requires, in Article 11, each government to
maintain records regarding the “quantity,model/type, authorized arms transfers,
arms actually transferred, and details of end-users.” They must keep
these records for a minimum of 10 years. These reports must be submitted to
the UN’s Implementation Support Unit to be added to the UN Register of
Conventional Arms. In order to purchase and possess a firearm citizens will
now be required to give to the United Nations their names, addresses, phone
numbers, birth date, and any other information the UN feels is necessary.
In summary, the national control agencies will collect all
information necessary to identify and track not only the firearms but those who
will be the “end-users,” the possessors of those firearms and that information
will be submitted to the UN to be kept on their records for 10 years. Make no
mistake, this is not referring to foreign trade, this is a direct control and
monitoring of the individuals of that country possessing arms.
But wait; there is an amendment process to this Treaty.
Pursuant to Article 20, any government can submit an amendment to the Treaty at
any time and ratification only requires an “adoption by consensus” or two-thirds
of the governments present and voting at the Conference of State
Parties. Any such amendment ratified will enter into full force against all
governments in the Treaty. So if the government doesn’t like an amendment, too
What happens if a government no longer wants to be part of
Section 18 allows governments to withdraw from the treaty,
but includes the provision that a government is “not discharged from the
obligations” of the treaty even if they withdraw. So you can withdraw, but the
UN will still require you to fulfill the obligations of the treaty. Are you
The purpose of this Treaty is to regulate “small arms and
light weapons” out of the hands of the individuals. It will remove the need for
the government to confiscate weapons. All future sales will be so heavily
regulated that purchasing a new firearm will be next to impossible. If you still
wish to wade through the heavy regulations, you will consent to having all of
your personal identifying information submitted to the United Nations knowing
they will keep that information on file for 10 years. You will also consent to
submit to foreign law that will dictate how you possess and use that firearm.
They won’t need to show up at your door to take your weapons, most citizens will
simply find it too much trouble and not even bother.
Our second amendment states that the right of the people to
keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This Treaty is a violation of this
amendment and is unconstitutional. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will
be null and void and the people will not be bound by it. Don’t believe me?
Read what our founders say about unconstitutional treaties.
The real question is, if the Senate ratifies this Treaty, or
the President attempts to implement it without the authority of the Senate, what
will THE PEOPLE do about it? Will we stand for the Constitution and demand that
our states nullify this treaty as our founders require? Or will we blindly
submit to the tyranny of foreign law imposed upon us? Sam Adams said,
‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our
liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very
serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable
sharers of the event.”
Will we preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity
or will we involve them in our doom?
Re-posted from KrisAnneHall.Com
KrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them."
She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.