NRA Delivers Remarks at UN re: 2012 ATT

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6993&issue=

NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

Thursday, July 14, 2011


National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind."









United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011





Statement of the National Rifle Association of America



Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne

LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle

Association of America.



The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million

members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans

throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations

and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The

NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some

members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of

millions of lawful people NRA represents.



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.



It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections,

supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails

and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about

respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal

freedoms of any kind.



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.



So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is

tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even

submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has

become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling

for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the

constitutional freedom of American gun owners.



The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any

other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of

Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.



Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian

firearms within its scope.



Thank you.

The UN wants everything controlled. The individual does not have the right to be left alone in their philosophy. It would make me feel better if the ATT made a point of saying that civilians should be able to legitimately own firearms.

Thanks the the multiplicity of national interests, the UN doesn't even know if it wants to go to the bathroom, let alone to control anything. The UN is a hostage to the sovereignty of its members.

Peacekeepers on the Israeli-Palestinian border? "We're not going to ask for them," says Israel. So no go.

International Criminal Court? "Not for our citizens, thank you," says the United States.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People? "Nope," pipe up Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States (not coincidentally the four nations built upon the displacement of indigenous people).

Commission on Disarmament? It's North Korea's turn to chair that one.

Human Rights Committee? Well, the Africans have put Libya up for membership on that one.

It is no wonder that the only effective organ of the UNO is the Security Council--because it's small enough to get decisions made, and the real muscle is in that room. Which is why, of course, Security Council reform is so controversial.

That being said, the UNO is a vitally necessary organization for providing a framework for international cooperation. It provides an eminently sensible framework for dozens of agencies that are necessary in a complex, multinational world: ICAO, WHO, ILO, FAO, WMO, and more.

thats crazy!! ! I think the UN needs to respect each country's own rights before telling them what to do.

News Flash - The UN doesn't care about our rights, they never have.