Cox: The UN Threat To Our Freedoms Persists

Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director.

(Editor’s note: The following is a column from NRA-ILA Exec. Director Chris Cox.  It first appeared on the NRA-ILA homepage.)

With the country’s attention focused on the results of the national elections, it is easy to forget about the fight being waged on our Second Amendment-protected rights in the international arena. While there are numerous initiatives that we continue to monitor internationally, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is at the forefront of the NRA’s focus to protect America’s law-abiding gun owners from the continued push for gun control by international anti-gun interests.

Since John Kerry signed the ATT on behalf of the Obama administration in late 2013, the only thing standing in the way of the treaty’s final approval has been our pro-gun allies in the U.S. Senate, whose vocal opposition has prevented the current administration from forwarding a resolution for ratification.

Billed as a treaty focused on the regulation of international trade in conventional arms ranging from fighter jets to small arms and light weapons, supporters of the ATT are coming to realize that this initiative has neither a means to challenge its violators nor any real chance to impact the international flow of military arms. In other words, it’s a total failure.

As the NRA predicted, however, the focus of the treaty is now shifting almost exclusively to the domestic civilian trade in firearms. While we expected this shift all along, the move to undermine and attack the Second Amendment-protected rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans came sooner than we could have imagined.

Never was this clearer than at the Second Conference of States Parties to the ATT. The purpose of this meeting was to assess treaty implementation issues and identify ways to improve compliance by nations that continue to trade in conventional arms. This meeting, held in late August, marked not only the beginning of the implementation process, but it also is where the politics of domestic gun control began to rear their ugly head once again.

The third speaker on the agenda, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs Claudia Ruiz Massieu, diverted from the customary welcoming remarks and messages of “good will” to turn her discussion into a political rally, urging those in attendance that civilian ownership and transfers should fall under the purview of the ATT. In other words, that our individual gun rights should be subject to international control.

Further capitalizing on her 15 minutes of fame, the secretary aligned herself with Barack Obama’s false assertion that it is “easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable” by boldly proclaiming that in America, “It is easier to acquire a firearm than a liter of milk or a box of cereal.”

This type of coordinated messaging doesn’t just happen. Obviously, the supporters of the ATT see it as one more opportunity to undermine our Second Amendment-protected rights. After all, we are unique on the world stage when it comes to firearm freedoms, and many are willing to use international agreements to push their anti-gun agenda in America.

One would think that the members of the U.S. delegation, each sworn to support and defend the Constitution, would have come to the defense of our freedoms during Massieu’s attack, but each just sat idly by. They had obviously received their marching orders from the Obama administration and accepted the attack on our rights with silence.

Without the U.S. delegation defending our Constitution and its protections, treaty supporters quickly capitalized on the vacuum of leadership. Previously, the ATT’s proponents had consistently argued that civilian owners of firearms were not their target, but here a direct assault was under way.

Not surprisingly, existing ATT language was amended through interpretation—what reads as up was now being interpreted as down and “voluntary” categories designed to address civilian small arms were included in the treaty’s reporting requirements. There is little doubt that “voluntary” is soon to become mandatory.

The good news is that we can stop this brazen attack on our rights. As it is a treaty, the Senate is required to approve a resolution of ratification before the U.S. becomes bound by its terms. If the Senate considers moving on ratification of the ATT, America’s gun owners can tell them loud and clear that our constitutional freedoms will not be governed by the anti-gun desires of foreign interests.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 21 comments… add one }
  • Mark From Bristol January 2, 2017, 10:20 pm

    There was a time when $1 MILLION was an incredible amount of money. Then our national budgets by Congress moved up to the BILLION$ of dollar$…holy cow, stuff is getting out of control. Then Barrack Hussein was elected and there hasn’t been an annual budget under $1 TRILLION dollar$, and several more $pending program$ requiring even more TRILLION$ in $pending. When Barrack Hussein moved into OUR oval office, because of the “emergency stimulus” by the outgoing Bush, we moved from $8 TRILLION in debt to $9 TRILLION in debt, and now eight years later we are $20 TRILLION in debt.

    I propose going more in debt, a large amount, but nothing compared to the way we’ve been $pending tax money, funded by an ever dwindling group of people…you and me. Here’s my idea. Our next president approaches Congress for $1.5 BILLION (not TRILLION) in $pending. The first $1 BILLION goes to France to rehab the old League Of Nations buildings in Paris, and they get ONE YEAR to rehab them, period. At the one year mark, we use the remaining $.5 BILLION to pickup and move every single member of the UselessNited Nations and their staff, and move them to the League Of Nations buildings in Paris. Move them, revoke their diplomat status, AND THEN we withdraw as members of the UselessNited Nations…DONE WITH THEM. The money that we would save overall by investing $1.5 BILLION to get out of the UselessNited Nationswould be astronomical, and they could take their gun control and One World Government/New World Order and go straight to he…..

  • BJG December 30, 2016, 7:59 pm

    The U.N. has been nothing but trouble for the U.S. We should stop funding and get out of the U.N. Nothing but America hating third world trash. Screw them all.

  • Pistol Packin Preacher December 30, 2016, 7:58 pm

    Drain this UN swamp too!!! It has done some good in feeding some people in the world but we can get much more done with less bureaucratic gush by going through any of thousands of other more accountable organizations. The UN must go! We are sovereign Americans and must not lose this. We work with anybody that wants to do good but must not be controlled by Anybody!

  • Ed Sunderland December 30, 2016, 1:21 pm

    The UN has no business in the US handling any US policy. We need to defund it and get out of the UN. The charitable reason for the existence of the UN has been replaced by dictators and third world knuckleheads that think they know better than you or I when it comes to freedom and liberty.

    • Joe McHugh December 30, 2016, 3:22 pm

      Ed Sunderland, sorry, John Kerry gave the U.N. the right to control privately owned firearms when he signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. No, You read that right, the country that signs a treaty becomes bound by the treaty provisions at the moment it is signed. Chris Cox is wrong about the treaty being ineffective until the American Congress votes to ratify it.

      And now for the reason that the U.N. can direct a U.N. committee to enforce such a treaty. In the 1700’s, a treaty could be signed by an American ambassador in Paris and it would take months for the signed copy to reach the Congress in Washington. Then it would take even more time to gather the Senators that were away from Washington for a ratification vote. In the meantime, any American sailing ship that was about to leave Europe, bound for home was immediately subject to the newly signed treaty.

      Now for the fun part. Harry Reid held up the vote on the U.N. treaty for years, knowing full well that either the U.N. or a brazen American President could implement the provisions of the treaty, at least until the Senate vote on it. obama was not quite brave enough to do this but there is nothing to prevent the U.N. committee from enforcing the treaty with a demand to the American government. Remember, John Kerry signed it, and the Senate has yet to vote it down.

      The Founding Fathers never imagined the likes of Harry Reid or obama. They must be turning over in their graves.

      • Jtimme December 31, 2016, 7:30 pm

        What is the UN going to do, invade the USA for not seizing American citizen’s firearms?

        • Joe McHugh January 2, 2017, 12:20 pm

          Jtimme, no, the U.N. could simply demand that the American Federal Government enforce the treat as per the U.N. committee rules. After all Secretary of State, John Kerry, signed the document and the Senate of the United States has not rejected it.

          Imagine if the Hildabeast had won the race for the Presidency! She would have lost no time in issuing executive order after executive order to strangle the relevance of the Second Amendment. Example, she would have mandated that each firearm owner must purchase expensive liability insurance for every gun that is owned. She could rule that certain rifle ammunition is too dangerous because it could penetrate the armored vests that the police departments use. By, by hunting ammunition availability. High power rifles with telescopes could be ruled dangerous weapons too, because they could be used by terrorists. See a pattern here? A democrat like the Hildabeast could make the Second Amendment all but impossible to enforce by the average citizen.

          All of this would be justified by the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. wouldn’t have to send in their blue helmeted thugs. It could just demand that the American Government honor it’s commitment when it had John Kerry sign that document.

          • bill January 11, 2017, 6:41 am

            Since we are a Sovereign Nation, aren’t any illegal treaties null and void. Obama shouldn’t and in my mind couldn’t sign treaties that effect our Sovereignty, right?

  • KB31416 December 30, 2016, 12:41 pm

    It is about time that patriots in the USA and elsewhere develop and sign a Declaration of Independence from the UN.
    The tin pot overlord would be dictators at the UN need to be sent packing and returned to the third world shitholes they crawled out of.

  • montana3802 December 30, 2016, 11:12 am

    Hopefully our incoming President in January will be able to stop some of this New World Order crap from taking place. The UN should be forced out of America and back to the world they came from.

  • Mister Ronald December 30, 2016, 9:02 am

    This is all the agenda of the ONE World group (Controlled by Bloomberg & Soros)
    The U.N. already controls Europe with the E.U.controlled by the U.N. Nazi party.
    Bloomberg and Soros along with other Billionaires own the United Nations and control the U.N. Armed forces.
    This so called treaty is designed to disarm all Americans sometime in the future and is dangerous to our freedom.
    The “Stolen Valor” piece of garbage already signed it a while back and it is yet to be ratified.This is dangerous and should never ever have been thought of by any of our elected officials. It seems to me that none of these so called representatives ever even heard we had a constitution and bill of rights.
    This is why we have the 2nd. amendment, It does not matter if some people don’t want to have or like firearms, I’m hoping they like freedom and our way of life, protected by the 2nd. amendment which is very clearly stated.
    Read it and read it slow enough to understand the meaning. (BOTH PARTS)
    God Bless America

  • DONALD December 30, 2016, 8:55 am

    The UN should keep their business limited to keeping peace between nations. They have no business dictating laws and regulations for the United States! The United States should not be governed by a foreign nation or foreign nations in any way, shape or form. I agree with GunFlint1, Push the UN building into the ocean and send all these foreign leaders back to their homeland!!!

  • Joseph Old December 30, 2016, 8:52 am

    STOP the ATT as soon as possible

    • Jim December 30, 2016, 9:28 am

      How about just stopping the UN? The “good ole boy’s club” has been in existence long enough. Quit paying the “dues” to the UN, kick them out of the country, put TRUMP on the building, sell condos, put the money from the proceeds into the US Treasury to pay for many of dumbo’s excessive trillions of dollars of excessive spending just to buy votes and pay off his rag-head brethren. Yes, Martha, he is a rag-head muslim!

  • Tom Sherman December 30, 2016, 8:15 am

    Who would enforce a UN gun ban? The building could be a VA Hospital.

  • GunFlint1 December 30, 2016, 5:54 am

    What toothless Tigers NRA/Government/Politicians do not realize is who would even enforce the UN Arms Treaty ? As far as I’m concerned the UN building(LOCATED on US Soil) could be pushed into the ocean.. Maybe no one has noticed, but over the last 8 years American Patriots have been arming them selves to the teeth & we see them on the shooting range rain or shine.
    They who are pushing Anti-2nd Amendment best wake up.

    • montana3802 December 30, 2016, 11:14 am

      Amen to that Brother!

  • Ron Stidham December 30, 2016, 5:21 am

    Clearly none of these people have been in the armed services, or the line of fire. Its to bad when the people we are to trust with our well being, are not the ones that should be making choices for the good of the people. Who are they trying to protect? Its sure not us. It should be a requirement that our elected, or appointed official’s have been in the Misery of WAR.

  • William Marvel December 30, 2016, 4:17 am

    Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the USA! Nothing good about that perverted global muck and mire.

  • SuperG December 28, 2016, 11:58 am

    The UN, though noble in thought, has been a disappointment in reality. It’s killed American troops assigned as “peace keepers”, by forbidding them to fire on hostiles. So, for that reason alone, to the UN I say GFY. Come back when you get a spine, come back when you want to stop ignoring the atrocities in North Korea, etc. But as an American, if my government ceases to abide by the U.S. Constitution, then it is no longer my government, but an enemy occupier.

    • Tom Horn December 30, 2016, 7:58 am

      Well said, G!

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend