{"id":997,"date":"2012-07-10T20:14:23","date_gmt":"2012-07-11T01:14:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/?p=997"},"modified":"2012-07-10T23:29:05","modified_gmt":"2012-07-11T04:29:05","slug":"nra-delivers-remarks-at-united-nations-concerning-proposed-arms-trade-treaty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/?p=997","title":{"rendered":"NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty"},"content":{"rendered":"

Statement of the National Rifle Association of America<\/h3>\n

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne<\/h3>\n

LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle<\/h3>\n

Association of America.<\/h3>\n

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million<\/h3>\n

members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans<\/h3>\n

throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations<\/h3>\n

and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The<\/h3>\n

NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some<\/h3>\n

members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of<\/h3>\n

millions of lawful people NRA represents.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely<\/h3>\n

monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries<\/h3>\n

participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous<\/h3>\n

proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.<\/h3>\n

We’ve watched, and read … listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident<\/h3>\n

and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it<\/h3>\n

is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in<\/h3>\n

order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago<\/h3>\n

rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual<\/h3>\n

citizen – not for the government.<\/h3>\n

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to<\/h3>\n

be unworthy of that trust.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the<\/h3>\n

proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most<\/h3>\n

importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.”<\/h3>\n

Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.<\/h3>\n

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told<\/h3>\n

that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are<\/h3>\n

numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual<\/h3>\n

destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s<\/h3>\n

exactly what is now being proposed\u00a0— with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a<\/h3>\n

SMALL bureaucracy.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in<\/h3>\n

civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same<\/h3>\n

regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling<\/h3>\n

internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit”<\/h3>\n

merely to change airports for a connecting flight.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.<\/h3>\n

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our<\/h3>\n

objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the<\/h3>\n

fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the<\/h3>\n

proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the<\/h3>\n

complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is<\/h3>\n

critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this<\/h3>\n

there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second<\/h3>\n

Amendment freedom.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections,<\/h3>\n

supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails<\/h3>\n

and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about<\/h3>\n

respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal<\/h3>\n

freedoms of any kind.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss i f I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States<\/h3>\n

to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not<\/h3>\n

realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to<\/h3>\n

negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is<\/h3>\n

already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds<\/h3>\n

majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is<\/h3>\n

currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete,<\/h3>\n

this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is<\/h3>\n

tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even<\/h3>\n

submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has<\/h3>\n

become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling<\/h3>\n

for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the<\/h3>\n

constitutional freedom of American gun owners.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any<\/h3>\n

other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of<\/h3>\n

Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian<\/h3>\n

firearms within its scope.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

Thank you.<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n