So, since the election came out our way (huzzah!), I’ve seen talk re-surfacing about how the United Nations Small Arms Treaty means that… well… either President Obama is going to go door-to-door collecting guns, or he’s going to allow UN peacekeeping forces to do it – the specifics vary.
Note: the U.N. Small Arms treaty should not be confused with the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” which is a whole other issue, although sometimes the two are confused, one for the other.
I’ve been hearing about the inevitable passage of the U.N. Small Arms treaty since President Obama’s re-election while in gun stores, at the bar, and, of course, throughout social networks.
Let’s venture beyond the UN’s orange peacekeeping squiggle, though, and discuss this, shall we…?
First off, to give credit where it’s due, Snopes has already covered this subject quite well, so, I’m largely just re-hashing their work. I’ll be putting it together in my own words, though.
First off, there currently is no treaty to even discuss. There was a version proposed back in the Summer, but it didn’t pass, so, we’re largely where we were before – speculating about what may, or may not, be included in any final language. Any new version may be identical to that language, or it may be wholly different.
Maybe that’s why the story varies about who, exactly, will be coming to collect our guns – it hasn’t been decided just yet. Of course, if its going to be Hillary Clinton, I wonder if she can get it done before she steps down as Secretary of State…? Time will tell, I suppose.
Secondly, it’s extremely unlikely to pass. It takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to ratify a treaty. Just because it is agreed upon by a committee of the United Nations, this does not make it binding. I know we picked up a few seats in the last election (huzzah!), but we didn’t get quite that many. That being the case, it would require quite a few Republicans to vote to ratify (unlikely at best) as well as getting all the Democratic Senators to agree on something long enough to vote to support it (maybe not quite as unlikely as the last proposition, but it’s close).
Thirdly, the treaty has nothing whatsoever to do with gun sales or ownership inside any country. It deals, exclusively, with arms sales from one country to another. Not being a sovereign country, I think I’ll probably be safe.
Now, seriously, it may impact prices on some imports, but that is rather questionable as well, what with the not having any language to check or much chance of passing in the first place.
Fourthly, and largely connected to thirdly, no treaty supercedes the United States Constitution. That being the case, even if I am incorrect on every single point I put forth earlier, if the treaty did, in fact, allow the President or his minions to collect firearms, the 2nd Amendment still would not allow that to happen.
In fact, the only thing I worry about with the UN Small Arms treaty is that the NRA may, once again, use it to separate the gullible from their money.
In all seriousness, and as an ardent supporter of the entire Bill of Rights – including the 2nd Amendment – I just do not see this as being a big deal. There is little chance of such a treaty being ratified by the United States, and, even if it were, it would have little to no impact on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, any more than would a United Nations resolution about hate speech having any real impact on our Freedom of Speech.
The whole idea has been blown entirely out of proportion, in my, rarely humble, opinion.
Please take not3 -- this diary will be published by the RKBA group in conjunction with another diary, at a time I may not be immediately available to interact in comments. I will do so as soon as possible, however. Thank you for your patience.