Are Foreign Troops Given Authority To Enforce The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty On US Soil?

Freedom Outpost – by Tim Brown

As Barack Obama prepares to sign the United Nation’s Small Arms Treaty when Congress concludes its summer session, some have wondered whether or not it gives authority to use foreign troops on US soil to enforce the treaty.

If you wish to understand just what is entailed in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), you need look no further than Article 15 of the treaty (Click here for a downloadable PDF or click here for the online version). Article 15 reads:  

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

It provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and it mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. Notice this includes legal, financial, technical, as well as “material” assistance to enforce the treaty.

Should the US sign onto the treaty and it be ratified, it would make us responsible for helping in the implementation in states that request such assistance. It’s not like we don’t have enough going on without having to deal with this nonsense.

Dave Workman of the Examiner wrote back in July 2012, “Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law.”

Workman then pointed out, “However, Versnel-Gottlieb notes that the proposed treaty is still getting support from the United Kingdom and the French delegation let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned “weapons.” Gun rights activists will quickly note that this has not worked too well for the British.”

We are already aware of the United Nations sordid history of attempting general and complete disarmament, including individual arms that are legally owned.

The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument that aims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”

The treaty specifically recognizes only “lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreationalculturalhistorical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.”

We already know that American troops were used to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina. You can see the video evidence here and here. At least Staff Sergeant Joshua May refused to confiscate guns from people during Hurricane Katrina.

However, Article 15 of the ATT makes one wonder whether or not foreign troops would be sent in to confiscate law abiding American citizens’ weapons.

First thing is first though. Barack Obama must sign the treaty and then it must be ratified, which a Senate resolution has already been passed stating that will not happen, thanks in part to the work of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Also, 130 members of Congress recently sent a letter to both Obama and Kerry opposing the treaty. More than that, we must find a way to ultimately kill this treaty even if it is signed by Obama. Otherwise it lingers in the background waiting for an opportune time to be ratified by a completely radical leftist Senate.

With that said, I’m sure if Congress wouldn’t put an end to such a thing, that many Americans would be more than willing to welcome foreign troops, under the UN banner, in a hailstorm of bullets of various calibers.

Read more:

17 thoughts on “Are Foreign Troops Given Authority To Enforce The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty On US Soil?

  1. Pinning hope on a do-nothing, nut-less Congress??? Sh!t in one hand and Hope in the other & see which one gets full first.

    I don’t need to rant on what will happen when foreign troops actively consificate ANY firearms on American soil. Lots of B27 targets being used out there with painted on ‘Blue Hats”.

    1. A blue hat without a bullet hole through it isn’t complete until there is.The day is coming that the second amendment will be tested and I hope 30 or 40 million real Americans answer the call! The I hope the same ones hold all these traitor trash politicians ,judges,bankers and anyone else that has spit on the Constitution to be tried and executed for their crimes. I’m meaning at every level too,Federal ,state and local,the trash needs to be removed from society!

      1. You’re right about adding State & Local….got to clean the garbage out of one’s own front yard before b!tching about the neighbor’s.

      2. Cracker,and all you other guys,REMEMBER ONE THING,”THE MONROE DOCTRINE”it forbbids any foreign military from SETTING FOOT in the western hemishere on dry land ,any where from canada to south america,THAT was written to protect americans from foreign invasion,ANY FOREIGN TROOPS CAN BE SHOT ON SIGHT,and one other thing,THE DICK ACT OF 1902,it says all gun laws are forbiden,illegal and its treason to VIOLATE this law,and the best part of it is ,it can’t be changed,it can’t be repealed,and ANYONE trying is guilty of treason,gee, the whole government is guilty of treason,HANG THEM ALL……………

        1. we already have UN troops on american soil, shit just look at the training they are doing with our troops on their drills, and how we will use russian troops for security at events. but yes UN troops are living here in the ussa just waiting to get the green light

          1. There are almost 100.000 foreign troops currently in the US, mainly in the south and southwest. Places where taking someone’s guns away from them might cause trouble

  2. I’m really not concerned with this ATT baloney.
    I don’t care what any judge declares.
    I don’t care what any president wants.
    I don’t care how the senate votes.
    I don’t care how the US voting mob feels about guns.
    I don’t care if we end up in a global tyranny whose control freak leader invokes the death penalty for gun ownership; I shall never relinquish the tools needed to keep me from becoming a slave or killed in a genocide.

  3. “we must ultimatly find a way to kill this treaty”. Try this, it is repugnant to
    the Law of the land ie. the Constitution,and therefore is null and void.

    I’m with Dave, MOLON LABE!!!!!!!!

  4. Canada and the USA already have a signed pact in place that allows the use of each others’ military during “civic unrest” .

    1. Remembering back to the 1972 elections and a certain “Canuk Letter” that killed the Muskie Campaign for President, in this case I can think of a few letters any Canadian who tries this crapola in the USA might encounter: SKS…AK…you know. Not my gun, I don’t own one, but I can think of a few folks who just might…


    In the case of Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1 (1957)), a US woman killed her soldier husband on a US military base in the UK. Pursuant to the Status of Forces agreement the US has with the UK, she was tried for murder in a military tribunal (which didn’t have a jury). The US Supreme Court overturned the conviction, saying that Congress’s powers, including the power to regulate the armed forces, were still limited by the Bill of Rights, including Trial by Jury.
    • The ruling in this case basically said that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
    • The Court felt that Article VI, clause 2 was written the way it was written not to make Treaties supreme but instead to simple keep treaties written prior to ratification of the Constitution in force.
    • The Court also distinguished this case from Missouri v. Holland (252 U.S. 416 (1920)) by saying that in this case, the Treaty directly violated a Constitutional protection. In Holland, it was more of an indirect violation.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
    This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    1. ANON 45, any unelected police of what ever agency,are controled by the county sheriff,IF HE CAN’T CONTROL THEM,he has two choices,, to the citizens for help,or get the hell out of the way,and let the citizens handle it,BUT HE BETTER dam well remember who he works for,I think most sheriffs will go with the Invading armies,thinking they will win,OF COURSE THEY WON’T,but stupid is as stupid does,SO buy lots of rope kids,I think were going to need it…………………………………

  6. My blue hat keeps getting closer

    I’v had a dream about this since i was little kid. didnt even know what it meant back then.
    gotta go do some extra PT just in case…

  7. The US Senate has to approve this with a vote of 2/3, then it will go into effect. BUT that does not make it right. I do not give a crap what they do, it is still un constitutional.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.