[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5827-H5831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my
Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which Secretary Kerry signed
today at a U.N. ceremony on behalf of the United States.
My opposition and my colleagues' opposition is not a Republican
agenda. It is the defense of all Americans' right as enshrined in our
Constitution and in our Bill of Rights.
The Obama administration's participation in the Arms Trade Treaty has
left a trail of broken promises, and all in the form of ``red lines''
this administration has laid out and later abandoned. I'd like to talk
about a few of them right now.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit into the Record the State Department's Web
page listing ``Key U.S. Redlines'' for the ATT.
Key U.S. Redlines
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.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing
U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to
import, export, or transfer arms in support of our, national
security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial
activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must
not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking
and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international
standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must
not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to
allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to
enforce an ATT.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Now, one of those red lines says: ``The
Second Amendment to the Constitution
[[Page H5828]]
must be upheld.'' But the Treaty contains only a weak, nonbinding
reference to civilian ownership and fails to uphold the fundamental,
individual right to keep and to bear arms that is enshrined in our
Second Amendment.
Furthermore, the Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities
of owners of imported firearms. It creates the core of a national gun
registry. This violates existing U.S. law.
But it doesn't stop there. The Arms Trade Treaty requires nations to
report the data they collect to the United Nations. If this data
contains information on individual owners, it would constitute a
serious, dangerous privacy violation. Now, it sounds like this
administration doesn't take this Second Amendment red line very
seriously.
Another red line says: ``The ATT negotiations must have consensus
decisionmaking to allow us to protect U.S. equities.'' Now, in the
U.N., ``consensus'' means unanimity--all members on board in totality.
But when that failed, the Obama administration supported the ATT's
adoption by a simple majority rule vote in the United Nations General
Assembly. The administration broke its own most important red line.
Now, the U.S. regularly demands that negotiations be conducted by
consensus to protect our interests and our sovereignty, which is
critical when the U.S. is in the minority or when we are standing alone
at the U.N. Now, by breaking their own red line, this administration
has seriously reduced U.S. credibility because other countries now know
that if they push hard enough, America will accept a majority rule
vote.
In February 2010, Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher stated if
the whole world does not sign on, then the ATT is ``less than
useless.'' A number of key nation-states--including such stalwarts of
freedom and liberty as Russia, China, and others like India, Indonesia,
Iran and North Korea, among many others--do not support the Arms Trade
Treaty. Therefore, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is less than
useless.
Is the ATT less than useless, or is consensus just another red line
that the Obama administration doesn't take very seriously.
Today, Secretary Kerry said: ``This treaty will not diminish anyone's
freedom.'' Here is yet but another promise. Do we really think it's
credible?
Last month, the Obama administration took executive action to ban the
import of Korean War-era, vintage, collectible M-1 Garand rifles on
spurious public safety grounds. These are collectors' items. This shows
how this administration's action can be used to choke off firearms
imports.
The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will only encourage more
mischief. It only holds the good accountable and let's the bad do what
they want.
In the real world, promises do matter. We have made strategic, moral,
and legal commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the
Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel. What do these
promises really mean to President Obama? And what message does the ATT
send to our allies? And they wonder: Is America really there for us
when we need them, or is this just more talk, more empty words?
The American people have had enough of the Obama administration's
broken promises and phony, nonexistent red lines on ATT. I urge my
colleagues to join together to oppose the ATT.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, my friend, a great defender of the
United States Constitution, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kelly).
This is a very troubling day--very troubling day--for those of us who
believe in our freedom in America and our rights under the Constitution
and every day defend America's sovereignty.
Oregon's Second Congressional District is nearly 70,000 square miles.
That's a lot of ground. It's home to some of the best hunting in the
West, including mule deer, elk, cougar, bighorn sheep and antelope, in
addition to various waterfowl and upland birds.
Oregonians' proud heritage of hunting and owning firearms for sport,
protection and their livelihood dates back to the days of the Oregon
Trail--a trail my ancestors crossed in 1845 when they helped settle the
West.
As one hunter in Baker City, Oregon, told me earlier this year, he
said: Congressman, you know why they call this the Second District?
It's because we believe in our Second Amendment rights. And he's right.
Yet today, about 10 hours ago, Secretary of State John Kerry signed a
very vague U.N. treaty that leaves open the door to international
influences trampling on our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear
arms. And it encourages signatory nations to collect identities of
owners of imported firearms, setting the stage for a potential national
gun registry. And that is wrong.
The United States is a sovereign Nation. I strongly believe that our
Constitution--including our Second Amendment rights--must never be
subjugated by a treaty. Now, what's worse, we understand the
administration that signed this treaty may now never send it to the
Senate for consideration. I view that as another blatant attempt by the
Obama administration to act unilaterally--they seem to do a lot of that
these days--without the consent or the approval of Congress.
So I will strongly oppose not only this treaty, but also any funding
to implement any policy related to this treaty. And I will continue to
uphold the oath of office that each one of us in this Chamber took to
defend our rights and freedoms as enshrined in that great document, the
Constitution, and to make sure that our Constitution and our sovereign
rights are always above any foreign treaty, including one that never
even gets sent to the Senate.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Congressman Kelly, for hosting this important
hour to share with the American people the serious problems with the
U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.
Mr. Speaker, as cochairman of the House Sovereignty Caucus, I assure
you this ambiguous treaty poses serious threats to American national
security, foreign policy, and economic interests, as well as our
constitutional rights.
U.S. arms exports are among the safest in the world. The United
States should reject the U.N.'s attempt to force us into a system that
could jeopardize the safety of our citizens or those of our allies.
This treaty includes small arms and light weapons within its scope,
which covers firearms owned by law-abiding Americans. It sets up a
broad registration scheme that threatens the individual's firearms
rights.
The Arms Trade Treaty also threatens the ability of the U.S. to
protect our allies around the world since it contains questionable
language that could be misused to prevent America from arming allies
such as Israel or Taiwan.
President Obama knows that even members of his own party won't
support this treaty in many cases. He must think that gun control must
be pursued no matter what.
In my own State of Colorado, voters just recalled two State Senators
who pushed gun control against the wishes of their voters. These were
historic elections because no Colorado legislator had ever been
recalled in the history of the State.
I urge the Members of the Senate to reject this treaty and protect
our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend.
I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the dangerous U.N.
Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed this morning by Secretary Kerry.
This treaty will impact the United States' sovereignty, encroach upon
Second Amendment rights, and drastically affect U.S. foreign and export
policies.
It is common for a treaty of this kind to give definitions directly
so member states can understand the treaty's meanings and implications.
Instead, this agreement uses vague terms that are open for
reinterpretation later. It leaves open the opportunity for current
[[Page H5829]]
restrictions to be tightened at a later time. This has the potential of
heavily influencing our Nation's future policy without congressional
consideration or approval.
Our Second Amendment liberties, articulated in the Bill of Rights,
are put at significant risk by this treaty. Approximately one-third of
the domestic gun market is composed of imported firearms. The Arms
Trade Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities of the owners
of imported firearms. This could be the beginning of a national gun
registry, which would violate current U.S. law. The treaty would also
impose administrative burdens on the import and export of small arms.
This treaty would directly affect how the U.S. handles foreign
policy. The United States should be able to look into potential arms
sales by weighing the risks, potential outcomes, and goals of each
trade. Under the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, the U.S. would have to
complete a checklist of items before exporting arms, regardless of
their destination--even if that destination is Israel or Taiwan.
It will come as no surprise that the Arms Trade Treaty is not being
backed by Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, and numerous other
nations--many of whom do not have our best interests in mind.
In February 2010, this was called ``less than useless'' if not
supported by all nations. Why is this administration now locking the
United States into a treaty that other world powers have rejected?
Their unilateral decision to sign the treaty allows other nations to
trade arms knowing that the U.S. will be bound by a specific set of
rules.
Like the majority of the folks in Georgia's Ninth District, I cannot
understand why this administration would sign a treaty with such
drastic implications for our Nation's sovereignty and the right to bear
arms at home. The United States should not join treaties outside the
constitutionally prescribed process, which involves ratification by the
Senate--this is a concept this administration just amazingly seems to
not understand, especially from a constitutional law professor.
There is a reason the Constitution dictates the method and manner by
which the United States may enter into treaties: it is to ensure that
the treaties so harmful to our freedoms, such as this Arms Trade
Treaty, are never signed or ratified.
{time} 1945
I strongly oppose this administration's endorsement of the U.N. Arms
Trade Treaty and will work with my colleagues to prevent this agreement
from affecting the rights of our citizens. The executive branch does
not and should not possess a blank check to legislate domestically via
international treaties.
There is no treaty so important that it should be allowed to restrict
the rights of Americans to exercise those freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on a
global agreement. We don't need Russia and China giving their stamp of
approval in order to speak freely in our homes and in our churches. We
certainly don't need Iran and North Korea dictating our due process
rights.
I strongly oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and everything it stands
for. I do not and will not support the decision made by Secretary Kerry
to sign the treaty.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his tireless leadership
on this issue and hosting this Special Order tonight.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to my friend from North
Carolina, Mr. Richard Hudson.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues to
voice my strongest opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
currently before the United Nations.
First and foremost, by signing this overreaching treaty, the
administration is crippling one of our most fundamental rights: the
Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment
is our most fundamental right because it ensures that we can maintain
our other rights.
Second, by their own admission, the President and his administration
have said this vague treaty is difficult to interpret. Why would we
engage in an ambiguous and harmful agreement like this?
Finally, the President's own State Department said this treaty will
have international implications for U.S. arms sales to Israel and
Taiwan. Why would we engage in an agreement that would damage our
relationships with two of our strongest allies and give veto power over
decisions to sell arms to our allies to other nations around the world?
Mr. Speaker, I spent the past weekend in a deer stand and cannot
imagine allowing the laws of other countries to stop my ability and the
ability of other Americans from enjoying this tradition that I've
enjoyed my entire life. The people I represent in North Carolina can't
understand why this administration is seeking to damage our personal
liberty and the sovereignty of our great Nation.
We must oppose this treaty, and I encourage our colleagues in the
Senate to do the same.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
Your comments are very timely and very needed.
At this time, I would like to have Mr. Steve Stockman from Texas 36
address the situation.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled. Our friend said Republicans
are in the bedroom, but we have a President who is collecting our phone
records, collecting our medical records, and now wants to collect our
gun records. Where in the world and when do we say stop? Even our
friends in the media, he collected their records. Now we have a treaty,
so-called treaty, which stomps on our individual rights, undermines our
Constitution, and strips us of any kind of protection.
They said don't worry about it, the Senate will never ratify it. But
in a tradition of treaties, once a treaty is signed--once a treaty is
signed--our Nation typically follows that treaty. We are seeing before
us a President who is not listening to the people. Time and time again,
these actions are taken when there is--like a magician, he is over
here, focusing over here, and he did this today when a Texas Senator
was speaking.
This is all designed for us to be asleep while our rights are being
stripped. When are the American people going to wake up and realize
that the book ``1984'' has come about? Your rights are being stripped,
and I hear nothing. My friend, Bill Murray, who is an unwilling
participant in a lawsuit to take prayer out of schools, said it best.
His mother was an atheist who sued. He said the greatest fear that she
had was that the American people would rise up, but what happened was
nothing. Not a word was said.
Today, your rights were stripped, and we hear silence. It reminds me
when Jesus was praying and he turned to his disciples and they fell
asleep; there was silence. Go on and sleep, America, go on and sleep.
Your rights are being stripped, and you're saying nothing.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
At this time, I would like to yield to Jim Bridenstine, who
represents Oklahoma 51.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague,
Congressman Kelly from Pennsylvania, for yielding me the time. I would
also like to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma,
Jim Inhofe, who has been the upper Chamber's fiercest opponent of the
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I am proud that Senator Inhofe also
stands firmly with Senator Cruz in his fight to defund ObamaCare. There
seems to be some confusion about that back in Oklahoma, but he has been
standing with Senator Cruz from the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, already this year, the President tried to ban guns he
thinks look scary. They don't operate any differently--they just look
scary--so he tried to ban them.
Rejected by Congress, the President tried to create what is
effectively a national gun registry. The American people and their
representatives rejected that plan as well. In response, President
Obama today had his Secretary of State sign what is effectively an
international gun control treaty that will ultimately force all of us
to register our guns and our names and our information into an
international database.
[[Page H5830]]
President Obama once again demonstrated his hostility to the
Constitution, to the Second Amendment, and to the U.S.
sovereignty by signing the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. This
President is fundamentally antagonistic toward both our
constitutional right to keep and bear arms and American
independence from international bodies.
Why is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty so dangerous? First, the treaty is
ambiguously worded. Its basic terms are not even defined, which permits
gun-grabbing U.N. bureaucrats the widest possible interpretive scope.
We all know that the U.N. gun-grabbers will interpret this treaty just
as loosely as the President interprets the Constitution of the United
States.
Second, the Arms Trade Treaty is a direct shot at the Second
Amendment of the Constitution. Lawful ownership and use of firearms--
including for self-defense--are basic constitutional rights. The treaty
does not recognize this. In fact, the Arms Trade Treaty ``encourages
governments to collect the identities of individual end users of
imported firearms at the national level.'' This is the core of a
national gun registry.
The treaty also creates a national ``responsibility'' to prevent the
``diversion'' of firearms to illegal trade. Since illicit trade is not
defined, does this mean one American selling a gun to another American
counts as illegal? Who is to say? Groups like Amnesty International
have already stated that the Arms Trade Treaty is a ``start'' down the
path of control for ``domestic internal gun sales.'' This is
international gun control, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty is fully consistent with the
President's policy of ceding more U.S. sovereignty to international
bodies. He's pushed the Senate to ratify treaties that do nothing
except diminish U.S. sovereignty. These treaties include the U.N.
Conventions on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, the Rights of
Children, and the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
Does this mean that the United States finds no morally compelling
interest in protecting disabled persons, children, or women? Of course
not. In each of these, cases U.S. domestic law imposes far higher
standards of protection than many of the countries that have ratified
all three of these treaties. For example, such beacons of human freedom
as Cuba, China, Nigeria, Russia, and Syria have ratified all three of
these treaties. North Korea and Iran have ratified two of the three.
Unlike these countries, though, the United States actually upholds its
treaty obligations.
Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty is a perfect example of a
dangerous trend in international legal thinking called
``transnationalism.'' The goal of transnationalists is to ``circumvent
resistant legislatures'' and ``download'' so-called ``global norms.''
We've heard the President talk about global norms ad nauseam. But the
idea is to circumvent resistant legislatures and download global norms
into U.S. and other domestic law. Let me say that again: the
transnationalists pushing the Arms Trade Treaty, like Amnesty
International, want to avoid Congress, they want to avoid us--the
people's representatives--and impose international law from foreign
bodies.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the pro-Arms Trade Treaty supporters need a
lesson in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of
the land. We choose those that govern us and under which laws we live.
We should not give up our God-given rights and liberties to foreign
bodies such as the United Nations. The Second Amendment is not up for
debate. The individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms is not
a matter of discussion for foreigners.
The President will treat the Arms Trade Treaty as binding on America
no matter what the Senate does. He can't impose gun control in Congress
so he's going to use an international treaty instead. I pray that the
Senate rips this treaty to pieces and that our next President removes
America's signature and, with it, this hideous assault on our
Constitution.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
At this time, I would like to yield to the Member from Mississippi 1,
Mr. Alan Nunnelee.
Mr. NUNNELEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from
Pennsylvania for yielding, but also for his leadership on this
important issue.
I rise in strong opposition to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Obama administration has a disturbing tendency to favor
international regulation over American sovereignty. The Arms Trade
Treaty is just the latest example.
The Government of the United States was created by ``we the people.''
``We the people'' established the Constitution in order to limit that
government; but as a condition of establishing that Constitution, ``we
the people'' insisted that a Bill of Rights be adopted, a Bill of
Rights that would guarantee every citizen of our Nation rights. An
important plank in that Bill of Rights includes the right to keep and
bear arms, and it's guaranteed by our Constitution.
Under no circumstances should we ever agree to a treaty that
undermines that right. This Arms Trade Treaty encourages nations to
collect the identities of owners of imported firearms, which
constitutes the core of a national gun registry.
The treaty also requires nations to report the data they collect to
the United Nations. If that data contains information on individual gun
owners, it would be a serious violation of privacy.
The treaty could also restrict the ability of the United States to
conduct foreign policy and to sell arms to our allies, such as Israel.
Now, we've seen in recent months what happens when we rely on the
international community to act on America's interests. Russia, China,
and the rest of the United Nations should never be given veto authority
over American foreign policy; and we should never, ever subject the
United States Constitution to the whims of the United Nations. The
Second Amendment is sacred. We should always stand up and protect it.
That is why I strongly oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
and urge the United States Senate to reject it forthrightly.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of Members tonight. I think
this is a day that we really have to reflect back and look at mixed
messages.
Back in 2009 at a NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the President
said:
I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect
that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the
Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
Yesterday, the President stood in front of the United Nations and
said:
Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional, in
part because we have shown a willingness through the
sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our
own narrow interest, but for the interest of all.
I would just like to suggest to the President that ``integrity'' is
defined by ``saying what you mean and meaning what you say.'' Taking a
moment to express something that may or may not be the true core value
of who you are or what you believe is not acceptable. What makes us
truly exceptional as Americans is we are there every day in every way
to those who we told we would be.
The U.S. has the most sophisticated arms export control system in the
world. It has commonly been called the gold standard. That term ``gold
standard'' was used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yet
this Arms Trade Treaty does nothing at all to improve our system.
{time} 2000
We not only have laws on the export of arms; we actually enforce
them. People can and regularly do go to jail for breaking those laws.
Now, the Arms Trade Treaty will not improve the systems in other
countries, which, in many cases, actually have no systems at all. There
is a lot more to running an effective arms export control system than
simply signing a piece of paper and using your signature to express
something that is not truly in your heart.
There is so much vagueness with this Arms Trade Treaty. Our
regulations describing what we control are the most sophisticated in
the world. It is really extremely difficult to evade them with word
games. We mean what we say, and we say what we mean. It's just
integrity. Simple. The Arms Trade Treaty, by contrast, is so vague that
it
[[Page H5831]]
offers many opportunities for nations to claim they are complying with
the treaty while really carrying on as normal. This has the effect of
legitimizing the actions of bad actors.
We have a regular system for actually making the decisions about what
we will export and to whom we will export. This system takes many
things into account, but it is fundamentally based on upholding the
United States' national interest. It is not controlled by exporters,
unlike in Europe, where exporter interests actually dominate their
policies. This Arms Trade Treaty will do nothing to change that, but it
will give exporter-dominated nations a shield to hide behind.
Every nation-state can control the arms trade if it is truly willing
to do so--and the United States is ready to help--but few have
meaningful laws about the arms trade, and even fewer make any attempt
to enforce them. The United States has two major programs to help the
serious countries:
First, the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance--and
it goes by the term EXBS--is run from the State Department. The second
is the Humanitarian Mine Action Program, HMA, which includes stockpile
conventional munitions assistance, intended to assist in the disposal,
demilitarization, security, and management of explosive stockpiles,
which is run by the Department of Defense.
According to the State Department, the U.S. has contributed over $2
billion to reduce the harmful effects of illicit, indiscriminately used
conventional weapons through the Conventional Weapons Destruction
Program, which includes the HMA. In other words, the United States
actually backs its words with money and investment, and we have made
that attempt throughout the whole world.
Listen, our arms export control system is the gold standard of the
world. We are not greedy with our gold. We are willing to share our
practical knowledge with nation-states that are serious about arms
export controls. Let us not fall for the fool's gold of a treaty that
truly overpromises and underdelivers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to the Members of
Congress from around the country who joined me tonight in this Special
Order to oppose the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
I would ask the citizens of the United States, as Mr. Stockman said,
to please wake up. We are losing our country day by day in ways that we
do not recognize, in ways that we do not know, and, truly, the
sacrifice that this Nation has made over the years is of our 1.4
million men and women in uniform who have died to preserve those
personal freedoms and liberties.
This is not a good day for the United States. This is a day when the
United States lowered its expectations in its exceptionalism to
something that does not truly protect the United States and that has a
dire effect on our sovereignty as a Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, as a gun owner and lifetime member of the
NRA, I support the Second Amendment and every individual's right to
keep and bear arms.
But today, that right is threatened by the United Nations Arms Trade
Treaty. I am outraged by the administration's intention to sign this
treaty--a treaty that directly attacks our Second Amendment rights
through subversion and bureaucratic tricks.
How does the treaty do so, you ask? I'll name two . . .
First, this treaty is purposely ambiguous. It binds the United
States to a treaty that has yet to be fully written. That means that
only after signing will the treaty's fine points be written. Why are we
signing onto a treaty when we don't know what's in it? How many times
have the American people endured thousands of regulations written into
a law only after it has been signed by the administration?
Second, and most offensive, is the treaty's encouragement to signing
governments to collect the identities of the ultimate owners of
imported firearms. This treaty appears to give the administration the
cover it needs to start a gun registry--a gun registry that I'm sure
they will claim is harmless.
For those and other reasons, I am disturbed by the consequences this
treaty could have on America's Second Amendment rights. And many of my
constituents back home in Texas share this same concern.
No government--be it foreign or domestic--should be allowed to
infringe on our constitutional Second Amendment rights.
I remain strongly opposed to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I will
continue to work with my like-minded colleagues in the Senate to reject
this or any future treaties that would seek to barter away our Second
Amendment rights and outsource American sovereignty.
____________________