U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

[Tom98915]

This ia VERY BAD news for all of us who have firearms that use foreign ammo or those of us who buy surplus ammo & guns. Obama and Hillary are selling us out to the U.N. This stinks!!
This puts us one step closer to losing our 2nd amendment rights!!!
We must start telling our representatives in Washington how we feel!!


U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
Tuesday, 6 Oct 2009 08:04pm EDT

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

[spc]

Thanks for the update. I am not surprised they are working in this direction. The UN would love nothing better than to try to trump our 2nd ammendment rights here in the USA.

spc

[NikNak]

I wondered how long this would take .....

[libertarian]

Originally Posted by Tom98915

Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

That kind of cash talks to congress in a way that the NRA never will. I'd expect this to be a lot of bluster and posturing, but nothing will happen before 2012 at the earliest, and then with any luck there'll be a different administration in place anyway...

[cksh8me]

So we're selling around 38 billion in arms to third world toilets??????????

It's not M16's, Beretta's and Ma Duces. It's rockets, mines, anti tank stuff, apc's, etc. Throw in an airplane or Blackhawk or two. No way we sell that many small arms. I don't think Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, Remington, Smith&Wesson combined make that much stuff.

I'm throwing the BS flag.

[desertrat]

Agreed BS flag way up! This is all non sense.

Its official, if this goes through, its time to put the tea over the boat again, we need to just take this country back, by force if necesarry.

Originally Posted by cksh8me

So we're selling around 38 billion in arms to third world toilets??????????

It's not M16's, Beretta's and Ma Duces. It's rockets, mines, anti tank stuff, apc's, etc. Throw in an airplane or Blackhawk or two. No way we sell that many small arms. I don't think Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, Remington, Smith&Wesson combined make that much stuff.

I'm throwing the BS flag.