Please note that where ** appears, emphasis has been added to the original text.
EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda
More flexible administration revives U.N. arms treaty
That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama's re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations' previously comatose treaty regulating guns.
Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement (**). Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.(**)
The administration line is that the treaty applies only to firearms exports and poses no threat to domestic gun owners.(**) “We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” an administration official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”
It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment.(**) Treaty backers also want to insert provisions forcing ratifying states to promote a variety of fashionable left-wing causes including “sustainable development,” even though they have nothing to do with the arms trade.
Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. (**) Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.
A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported.(**) If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. With the election out of the way, the White House can move swiftly to get the treaty through the U.N. General Assembly and up to the Senate by the summer of 2013. Elections have consequences.(**)
[End of Times article]
Executive Order #13609, 'Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation', signed by Barack Obama on May 1, 2012, paved the way for implementation of a UN gun mandate, by committing the United States to standardizing or conforming its laws to international law in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
However, Constitutional limitations have not prevented this administration nor the Clinton or Bush administrations guilty of Constitutional violations.
Executive Order # 13609 can be used to institute gun confiscation regulations without Congressional approval as required for Treaties.
Section 2, Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation, builds upon Executive Order #12866 of September 30, 1993, with 'international regulatory cooperation': designed to investigate differences between U.S. and international regulatory laws and institute changes in the United States to enable greater cooperation (i.e., enact the same laws here in the United States). If other countries have regulations banning gun ownership (which most do), bringing U.S. law in 'regulatory cooperation' would be a way to remove another Constitutional privilege.
Since Executive Orders bypass Congressional approval, the President can sign a UN Gun Ban Treaty without ratification by Congress. In the past, the President signed Treaties, but they were sent to Congress for ratification. Will that continue?
Infringement on citizens' rights began soon after the United States was formed, but gained ground with the institution of Social Security, imposing servitude upon the citizenry to the federal government. I won't go into that at this time; just suffice it to say that the requirement to obtain a birth certificate and social security number began at that time. The newest members of U.S. society are collateral against the debts of the government. Ingenious!
- Rex 84 (Readiness Exercise) with its admirable design to protect the continued operations of the federal government in the event of catastrophe provided the groundwork for abuse of federal powers and begat the final part of the internationalists plan - to remove Constitutional privileges from the citizens. (More later on this!)
- The Patriot Act allowed unlimited spying on the American people by the government.
- The National Defense Authorization Act 2012 (specifically Sections 1021 and 1022) authorizes the President to impose indefinite detention, without due process, of any person he deems a threat to national security.
- HR 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, expanded the authority of the Secret Service to regulate protests in and around areas where persons under their protection are located. Under HR 347, protestors have to remain stated distances from a president, congressperson, etc., or be subject to arrest; and, limits our Constitutional right to gather.
- Executive Order National Defense Resources Preparedness Act, allows the President in an emergency (but does not define what is encompassed), solely through cabinet Secretaries, to confiscate every resource of the United States, including food, water, transportation and infrastructure, etc., and the citizenry conscripts, as necessary. It closely resembles Executive Order 12919, enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Why did the framers of our Bill of Rights put the Second Amendment in place? To protect us from our government.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Every dictator in society removed guns from society before taking control. The international powers behind United Nations want to take control of the United States, because this nation has been the only nation preventing a global government. As the people freely relinquish their rights, one by one, they enable this evil cabal to realize its