In the heat of the presidential election this past summer, talks collapsed with the U.N. and gun control activists on a global arms treaty that supporters say will help international security, fight illicit arms trafficking, keeps guns out of the hands of terrorists, and protect sovereign states' ability to conduct legitimate arms trade. Opponents say the policy would infringe on the constitutional rights of American citizens to bear arms. After the reelection of Barack Obama and shortly following the horrific Newton, Connecticut shooting, talks on the treaty began again, as the United Nations voted on Christmas Eve to reconsider the measure.
Reconsideration picked up again in New York Monday, only this time, the National Rifle Association has come out in opposition. The NRA and other gun organizations are requesting that “civilian weapons” not be included in the scope of the treaty, and worry that the ATT could create an international registry. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation writes on TheBlaze contributors page that ATT is a bad idea, but because "it's a gun grab."
But it’s not a bad idea because it’s a gun grab. It’s a bad idea because it will restrain the democracies, not the dictatorships. It’s a bad idea because it cannot work.
Above all, it’s a bad idea because, when it fails, its supporters are going to do what comes naturally to them: blame the United States and demand a new treaty that imposes even tighter, supranational controls.
The ATT, in other words, is not an event: it’s a process. That is one reason why calling it a gun grab is wrong and unhelpful. The U.N. is an incompetent organization, and many ATT supporters are remarkably naïve in their belief that a treaty will stop human rights abuses around the world.
On 'Real News' Monday the panel discussed the global gun control fight taking shape with NRA President David Keene.