TexasCHLforum.com

The attempt didn't end in 2001; it's an ongoing project. UN treaties aren’t like legislation. Efforts to pass them go on for years with some countries signing some not. Also, look who was President in 2001 and he wouldn't have signed it, so it wouldn't have gone to the Senate. If Gore, Kerry or H. Clinton are in the White House in 2009 and beyond, it's a different ball game. Give them a Democratic Senate majority and it's a different ball game yet. And the U.S. House of Representatives won’t be involved!

The firearms industry in the U.S. is very small; only 2 billion annually for small arms and not all of that is for the civilian market. As to house-to-house searches, you are correct - it can't be done. But every time someone used a gun for self-defense or anything else, then they would be subject to arrest. Ammo, reloading components and spare parts sales would be over and you'd be buying them on the black market, if they could be found at all. Add to the mix a few highly publicized prosecutions and people going to federal prison for 20 or more years and you will scare the guns out of most people's hands. Why on earth remain idle and let this happen, only to say we'll fight them later when they come to my door?

"It's not going to go anywhere[?]" I respectfully disagree. The UN small arms treaty absolutely will be signed by a U.S. President and ratified by the U.S. Senate, unless enough people take it seriously and let our Senators and President know it. This isn’t a one-time effort; we must be on guard against it as long as there is even a whisper of a UN small arms treaty. Remember, when it comes to guns and gun ownership, Australia was a virtual mirror image of the U.S. but the Peters/Soros team shoved gun-control/gun-ban/gun confiscation down Australians throats in a matter of weeks.

As is probably obvious, this is a hot topic for me, because so many gun owners don’t take this threat seriously. The “it can’t happen here� attitude may give some comfort to those who feel that way, but it’s a false sense of security. The sole reason for broaching the subject in the UN is to get to the US. Very few countries allow any private ownership of guns, much less the broad right we enjoy. Most countries in the UN would love to have a treaty that made it illegal for their “subjects� to own guns - it makes it much easier to quell dissent. Soros is behind IANSA and he has been helping the anti-gun crowd in the US for years. This is just his latest effort.

Apathy is a far greater threat than the UN, Rebecca Peters and George Soros combined.

Chas.

The UN treaty on small arms is one of the most dangerous threats we've faced regarding the Second Amendment. I've talked with many people who firmly believe a UN treaty can't trump our Constitution. This is both correct and incorrect. If the U.S. Supreme Court had issued an opinion that the Second Amendment is an individual right of the citizen, then the UN small arms treaty would not have an effect on gunowners.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued such an opinion, so a UN treat would trump the Second Amendment. All it would take is a U.S. President to sign the treaty and the U.S. Senate to ratify it. Let us have a Democrat President and a Senate controlled by the Democrats and we could see the U.N. small arms treaty in effect as soon as 2009. This is no idle threat. The IANSA group is headed by Rebecca Peters, the miserable lying woman who ran the successful gun-grab in Australia. She's financed by George Soros, so her funding knows no limits.

So the next time someone says the U.N. small arms treaty is nothing but a fund-raising effort by the NRA, tell them to do a little research as to how treaties are applied in the U.S., before they undermine our efforts on this issue.

Regards,
Chas.