8

Is there any truth to the following claims which can be found on several sites, including:

The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the U.S. State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the U.S. Government signs these international treaties, all U.S. 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.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
DW Conrad
  • 97
  • 2
  • 9
    Surely the utter lack of any serious attempt to impose federal controls on gun sales would constitute a direct refutation this paranoid delusion? – matt_black Nov 29 '12 at 15:53
  • only if USA ratifies the treaty otherwise the treaty is not worth the paper is was printed on – ratchet freak Nov 29 '12 at 16:39
  • 2
    @rachetfreak - Even if we ratify the treaty that only commits the US to enact laws that support the treaty. The US could ratify a treaty that requires it to disarm its citizens(I know that is not happening anytime in the near future but lets pretend they did it anyway), that would not enact any laws or give the government any rights to take guns away. Congress would need to enact laws to support the treaty... one of them would probably have to be an amendment to overturn the 2nd amendment. – Chad Nov 30 '12 at 15:00
  • 1
    @Chad: Ratification is the bringing of a treaty into force. Some states eg Russia make a treaty legally enforceable within the state when the treaty is signed by an authorized representative. The USA and other countries require not only agreement to a treaty by an authorized representative (eg POTUS), but also the bringing of that treaty into force as law through a process we call ratification. In the USA ratification requires 2/3rds of the senate. Since the US constitution grants supremacy of the federal government over foreign affairs, a ratified treaty is binding throughout the union. – Brian M. Hunt Dec 01 '12 at 17:41
  • 1
    @BrianM.Hunt - It would only be enforceable outside of the US though. It would not change the constitution or any other laws in place. It would obligate the US to enact laws to do so. But it would not put those laws in force. – Chad Dec 02 '12 at 01:27
  • 2
    @Chad - I believe I stand corrected, thanks. This is a relatively new development, in [Medellín v. Texas (2008)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas). The prior, ancient, and accepted law was [Ware v. Hylton (1796)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_v._Hylton). As you say, per Medellín, it seems Congress must also agree in order to give legal effect to a treaty. – Brian M. Hunt Dec 02 '12 at 02:07
  • Ware allowed for the enforcement of existing laws internationally by treaty. It did not allow for the creation of new laws domestically. And that was what the court upheld in Medellin – Chad Dec 02 '12 at 04:33
  • On the general issue of how treaties (can) affect the Constitutionality of domestic laws, check out the case of Missouri v. Holland (1920).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland. Unfortunately, I think that only a lawyer would be qualified to answer whether a treaty could over-ride second Amendment protections. Otherwise, the US always has the ability to neglect to follow-through on treaties...the UN is not going to enforce any treaty directly. – adam.r May 22 '14 at 13:41

1 Answers1

21

There's no truth to the main claims.

The proposed Arms Trade Treaty is not about taking away guns from citizens who own guns

The proposed Arms Trade Treaty is not about changing citizens rights to buy own or sell guns to other citizens.

The proposed Arms Trade Treaty is not about restricting legal trade in arms.

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Fails On U.S. Opposition After False NRA Gun Rights Threat

Note that the treaty concerns international arms sales, not the rights of any nation's citizens to own arms, nor to sell arms to citizens within it's borders.

The claims:

ignore the legal principle that says no treaty can override the Constitution or U.S. laws.

Forbes reports

a press release issued by the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs says that “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons.”

Snopes rates a similar text (starting after the Reuters quote) as False, saying it is:

erroneous in all its particulars.

FactCheck looks at the issue as well:

Much of what this e-mail claims is simply false. A "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" isn’t possible under our Constitution, according to the Supreme Court [...]

Some versions of this claim (including those referenced) include two initial paragraphs attributed from Reuters. These are accurate, from an October 14, 2009 article, but it isn't made clear where the Reuters text stops.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty, Article 6, prohibits sales to

  • Those subject to UN Embargo (e.g. N.Korea?)
  • Illicit arms dealers (e.g. suppliers to Al-Qaeda?)
  • People known to be planning genocide (e.g. Akuzu in Rwanda?)

Article 7 requires the exporting country to assess if the recipient will use the arms to undermine peace or violate international law.

Here's the relevant text from http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_(As_adopted_by_the_GA)-E.pdf

Article 6 Prohibitions

  1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its obligations under measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

  2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

  3. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party.

RedGrittyBrick
  • 24,895
  • 3
  • 100
  • 111
  • I meant to make a small change, but it slowly grew until it is a bit larger than I like to do to another person's answer. Kindly check my changes and ensure I haven't added anything you are unhappy with. – Oddthinking Nov 29 '12 at 15:01
  • @Oddthinking: No problems, My answer is a bit disorganised and could probably be tidied up. Your additional material looks good to me. Would you like to convert to Community Wiki? – RedGrittyBrick Nov 29 '12 at 15:06
  • I'm happy for you to get the rep. You found the key articles. I was just trying to round the answer out, but it got away from me. – Oddthinking Nov 29 '12 at 15:07
  • I think you need to add the following, just to be fair... "The US imports 16 times more guns than they export" - meaning, many of the guns sought by Americans will become impossible to obtain. I myself own three Italian guns, one of which is the standard sidearm of the US armed forces. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/charts-foreign-gun-companies-laws-nra – Jasmine May 20 '14 at 21:12
  • @Jasmine. Didn't Italy [ratify the treaty](http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/att)? Are [Italian guns](http://www.beretta.com/en-us/firearms/) unavailable in the USA? – RedGrittyBrick May 20 '14 at 21:28
  • I don't know. The important point is that a ban on imports is why this equals "gun control in the US" which is an answer to the question. Beretta makes guns for the military IN the US, and those would not be subject to an import ban, but they don't make the Px4 here for example, which is my choice for carry. With the ban, I don't have that choice. – Jasmine May 20 '14 at 22:34
  • @Jasmine: which ban? The [treaty](http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_(As_adopted_by_the_GA)-E.pdf) prohibits sales to 1. those subject to UN embargo (e.g. N.Korea) 2. illegal arms dealers (e.g. Al-Qaeda suppliers) 3. those planning genocide (e.g. Akazu in Rwanda). I trust you are none of these. – RedGrittyBrick May 21 '14 at 08:26
  • 1
    @Jasmine - Aside from the fact that this doesn't ban those guns, the fact that your preferred gun of choice isn't manufactured in the US is entirely an economic decision on behalf of the manufacturer and has no relevance to whether or not you can own it, or a firearm in general. If it made economic sense (due to lost sales or import fees), they could start manufacturing the same gun in the country and entirely avoid the theoretical ban. It's the same way many "foreign" cars are actually assembled in the country they're sold. – Bobson May 21 '14 at 15:49
  • Yeah but the question is whether the treaty creates any gun control in the US, not whether it creates a certain kind of gun control in the US, and since it bans the import of certain firearms, which US customers want, it amounts to 'gun control' in the US. – Jasmine May 21 '14 at 16:29
  • 1
    @Jasmine: that would imply that since 1776 the US had gun control and both you and any US government are powerless to prevent it? As I'm struggling to see how to use your comments to improve my answer, please consider writing your own answer in the box below. – RedGrittyBrick May 21 '14 at 18:04
  • That doesn't matter. It might be worth pointing out that the treaty doesn't create any new type of gun control and that firearms trade has always been carefully regulated, but it's an answer to why people are saying that the treaty creates more gun control in the US. It's incremental, yeah, but it's still there. Currently, your answer explains the effect of the treaty very well, but it does not explain why people say it amounts to gun control in the US, which was the actual question. – Jasmine May 21 '14 at 18:42
  • @Jasmine - `but it does not explain why people say it amounts to gun control in the US, which was the actual question` -> sounds like a good reason to write your own answer. – Bobson May 22 '14 at 15:54
  • Which would never be seen due to this one being so long. – Jasmine May 22 '14 at 16:25
  • @Jasmine - Depends how you use SE. I tend to look at every answer, unless there's more than 6 or so. – Bobson May 23 '14 at 15:43
  • I'll write one up, because I think this site is about understanding the claims made. This claim, that the treaty creates gun control in the US, is valid, and that's not an opinion. My opinion is I think it's important for people to understand why the NRA says what it says about this treaty. I'm a gun enthusiast and NRA member, but I don't think they should be fighting this. I can explain why it IS gun control, but it's the type of gun control we should support, rather than jumping through hoops to try to prove it isn't gun control. – Jasmine May 23 '14 at 16:29