God Damn UN, You and the Liberals SUCK!

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/newly-approved-arms-trade-treaty-could-shut-down-flow-of-surplus-ammo/#axzz2Q3ZpsDjc

 

.

If they can't ban firearms, make ammo inaccessible or to expensive to purchase. Jerks

Wisdom::

President Lyndon Johnson captured a truth when he said; “You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”

Think Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, etc....  True of pretty much every previous government program, so why expect better from this arms trade treaty BS?

If I lived on the mainland, I would've stocked up years ago when it was 1/4 the price it is now.

.

Read the d*mned treaty.

There is nothing in it that would threaten the flow of surplus ammo and parts to US customers. Unless you think the US qualifies as a place where rampant violence threatens social order and human rights.

FEAR will keep prices high while people binge on ammo and parts, though.

Read the d*mned treaty.

There is nothing in it that would threaten the flow of surplus ammo and parts to US customers. Unless you think the US qualifies as a place where rampant violence threatens social order and human rights.

FEAR will keep prices high while people binge on ammo and parts, though.

it seems like no one has read it.

another drunken posting...I feel for ya man

Read the d*mned treaty.

Alright, I read it.

1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components where the export is in a form that provides the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such parts and components.

1. If the export is not prohibited under Article 6, each exporting State Party, prior to authorization of the export of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, under its jurisdiction and pursuant to its national control system, shall, in an objective and non-discriminatory manner, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State in accordance with Article 8 (1), assess the potential that the conventional arms or items:
(a) would contribute to or undermine peace and security;
(b) could be used to:
(i) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law;
(ii) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international human rights law;
(iii) commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international conventions or protocols relating to terrorism to which the exporting State is a Party; or
(iv) commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international conventions or protocols relating to transnational organized crime to which the exporting State is a Party.
2. The exporting State Party shall also consider whether there are measures that could be undertaken to mitigate risks identified in (a) or (b) in paragraph 1, such as confidence-building measures or jointly developed and agreed programmes by the exporting and importing States.
3. If, after conducting this assessment and considering available mitigating measures, the exporting State Party determines that there is an overriding risk of any of the negative consequences in paragraph 1, the exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.

So, as I read this, if the state (which seems to mean "nation" in this context) from which a shipment of arms, parts, or ammo originates thinks that the contents of those shipments could be used in a way they interpret as a violation of international humanitarian law or international human rights law, or could be used for terrorism, or could be used for international crime, they they shall not make said shipment.

It looks pretty clearly, at least to me, that any country with an anti-firearms agenda now can say "Hey, someone might use one of these pieces of ammo to shoot someone else, which is a violation of human rights!  We'd better not ship it!"  CMP could lose any chance of importing more Prykal surplus, to make an example close to my own heart.

You've been consistent in saying that this treaty does not, and can not, impact how the US conducts its arms trades.  That's accurate, but a half truth.  This treaty does allow other nations to stop shipments of arms, parts, and ammo TO us. 

I read the treaty.  And I am concerned.

Perfect. As I've said before the treaty is not harmless, but my reading of it doesn't seem to justify the alarm a lot of people seem to have about it.

According to the language of the treaty, then, a country (the seller - NOT the UN) could opt not to sell parts or ammunition to a US market based on the idea that someone might get shot. They ~could~ do that.

They could do that NOW without the treaty. They don't because we PAY for that stuff and everyone likes money. After the treaty we'll still pay for it. We pay top dollar, too.

All pretty academic, really. My little crusade for clarity aside there is no way in hell this will get ratified in today's political climate. Nor will it have much affect in the near term if it does. The treaty is FAR less about your guns and mine than it is about arms manufacturing countries supplying unstable areas for profit and using smaller countries as proxy battlegrounds for their own interests by supplying certain groups within them arms.

As I've stated earlier, this is exactly what the CIA did (among other things)  that created both the Saddam Hussein regime and the Taliban as part of our Cold War strategy. Seemed like a win/win at the time.

All pretty academic, really. My little crusade for clarity aside...

No, no, don't put that aside!  I LOVE crusades for clarity, and academic points!

And, I have to admit, that after reading this treaty, I am VERY impressed with how carefully it was worded to make sure that the rights of people to own and use firearms for both recreation AND defense were not infringed.  It looks to me like the UN has a better respect for the 2nd Amendment than our own fucking government does!

another drunken posting...I feel for ya man

Drunk and/or stupid is no way to go through life...Unfortunately it seems to be the norm these days.

Alright, I read it.

So, as I read this, if the state (which seems to mean "nation" in this context) from which a shipment of arms, parts, or ammo originates thinks that the contents of those shipments could be used in a way they interpret as a violation of international humanitarian law or international human rights law, or could be used for terrorism, or could be used for international crime, they they shall not make said shipment.

It looks pretty clearly, at least to me, that any country with an anti-firearms agenda now can say "Hey, someone might use one of these pieces of ammo to shoot someone else, which is a violation of human rights!  We'd better not ship it!"  CMP could lose any chance of importing more Prykal surplus, to make an example close to my own heart.

You've been consistent in saying that this treaty does not, and can not, impact how the US conducts its arms trades.  That's accurate, but a half truth.  This treaty does allow other nations to stop shipments of arms, parts, and ammo TO us. 

I read the treaty.  And I am concerned.

UN 61/89 is aimed at nations that illegally supply arms & ammuntion to rogue/developing nations, terrorists, etc. It's meant to stop violations of humanitarian law. Personally, I don't believe it'll work nor will it have the effect they want. BUT over analyzing and interpreting the "what if's" serves no purpose, except maybe to fuel paranoia.

Sure, individual nations can interpret things or "play it safe" in choosing not to export, but that's doubtful.  The international arms trade is a multi-trillion dollar business. It's more likely that "new" companies will pop up, selling the same surplus ammo, repackaged and/or rebranded as "target", "sporting", or something else that their well paid legal minds come up with. So don't worry, you'll still get your beloved Prykal surplus...maybe it'll have a happy face on the box, but it'll be the same.