NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre delivered remarks before the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee this week.
As expected, he blasted the proposed Arms Trade Treaty’s planned “common sense restrictions” on private gun ownership, which are clearly contrary to our own Second Amendment and traditions of freedom:
This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We’ve watched, and read … listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.
We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.
Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.
We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.
We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.” Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.
We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.
We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.
We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s exactly what is now being proposed — with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.
We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.
We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit” merely to change airports for a connecting flight.
Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.
—
Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss i f I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.
To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.
The short version: “Go ahead, Ban Ki Moon…make my day!”
