Claim: A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment."
Example:[Collected via e-mail, April 2010]
While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.
The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.
Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING.
As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!
Origins: The concept of trying to crack down on the illicit trading of conventional arms
through the development of an international agreement setting standards for legal arms trading has been in process in the United Nations (UN) since 2006, when the General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Toward an arms trade treaty" which called upon the UN secretary-general to survey member states on "the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." The administration of President George W. Bush was opposed to such efforts, stating that they preferred national controls to
internatonal agreements, and in several votes on resolutions and procedures related to a UN arms trade treaty from 2006 through 2008 the United States either cast the lone dissenting vote or was one of a very small number of member nations voting in the negative.
The administation of President Barack Obama has been more receptive to UN efforts to craft an international agreement on the small arms trade, however, as reported in the October 2009 Reuters news article cited in the example text reproduced above. That month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement proclaiming that "The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons," and the U.S. voted in favor of moving forward with plans for a 2012 UN conference on drafting an arms trade treaty.
In March 2013 a finished version of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was finally presented to the U.N. General Assembly, and that body approved the treaty by a vote 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) on 2 April 2013. The U.S. was one of the member nations voting in the General Assembly to approve the treaty; only Iran, North Korea, and Syria voted against it. The treaty still requires ratification by fifty signatories before it can come into force.
The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States' having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" and will result in a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" — is erroneous in all its particulars:
The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States. The treaty also contains no provisions for its enforcement and relies upon the voluntary participation of member nations.
The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key "red line" that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.'
No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
As Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson Center and co-author of the book The International Arms Trade, noted:
Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners’ rights. It would do nothing of the kind.
The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. The treaty's preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.
Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized these points in his statement welcoming the treaty's adoption, noting that “nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” a point on which the United States insisted throughout the negotiations. This treaty has no reach into domestic gun policy, nor would it create a United Nations gun registry. There is absolutely nothing in it that violates the Second Amendment.
In short, there is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.
Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify "46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N." in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty:
WHAT A MESS
Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate
giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46
vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United
States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from
entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama
Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import
and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun
owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an
international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away
our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Notice that ALL are either Democrat or "Independent."
However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents.