Former (and perhaps future) Republican House Representative Bob Bar has ripped into the Obama Administration’s apparent goal of signing on to the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty, noting it is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment:
The true scope of the anti-firearm crusade of the United Nations, which began more than a dozen years ago, finally is coming into clear focus, as the White House readies to sign the Arms Trade Treaty adopted with U.S. support this past April by the U.N. General Assembly. The reach of this long-term, carefully crafted agenda is truly breathtaking, going far beyond the publicly articulated goals of even the most radical of homegrown gun-control groups.
Since the first major U.N. meeting in July 2001, officially launching the so-called “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,” this bureaucratic behemoth on the banks of the East River in New York City has been attempting to stretch its tentacles into the domestic regulation of firearms. If the administration of President Obama signs the Arms Trade Treaty, the U.N. will have taken a major step toward its ultimate goal — regardless of whether the treaty is ever submitted to the Senate for ratification.
According to experts familiar with this process, the mere act of signing the treaty — a responsibility that would fall to Secretary of State John Kerry — would “obligate” the U.S. government as a signatory not to act “contrary to” its terms. Those “terms” are, to quote Ross Perot, the “devil in the detail” — found not only within the four corners of the document itself, but in companion, foundational documents on which it is based.
For example, a 2006 U.N. report (authored by an American academic, Barbara Frey) lays out with frightening clarity where advocates of the approach reflected in the Arms Trade Treaty are coming from. According to this Eurocentric worldview, there is no “right” to self-defense, and the national government is obligated to restrict civilian ownership of firearms, including determining which citizens properly “understand” firearms and might, therefore, be permitted to possess them.
Would such a treaty have any “teeth” in the United States? You tell me.
The U.S. Senate has already indicated that they will not ratify such a treaty, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration seems to think itself above the law in its implementation of Obamacare, its continued stonewalling of the now concurrent IRS, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious investigations.
Do you think Obama would skip an opportunity to undermine the Second Amendment?