- Text smaller
- Text bigger
A month ago I wrote about the Obama administration’s decision last October to participate in the writing of a United Nations treaty to regulate the small-arms trade. Given the Obama team’s ideological commitment to that agenda, we need to develop a strategy to stop that treaty from ever reaching the United States Senate.
Last October, for the first time in history, the United States delegate to the United Nations voted yes on a U.N. resolution to proceed with treaty negotiations with a target date of 2012 for completing a treaty. It would be a grave mistake to wait for a U.N. treaty to be “initialed” by Secretary of State Clinton and sent to the Senate for ratification. We need to kill this little Frankenstein in its crib. But how?
There is a way for citizens in every state to register their opposition to the U.N. treaty and send a message to politicians. Citizens in the battleground state of Colorado are showing the way.
A group of Colorado conservatives are now circulating petitions to place the following state constitutional amendment on the Nov. 2, 2010, ballot. Colorado Initiative 42 reads:
The people of Colorado declare and request that all elected public officials in the state, including all state legislators, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, United States Representatives and United States Senators, oppose by all means available to them as elected officials the adoption or ratification of any United Nations treaty or other binding international agreement which impairs, restricts or regulates the right to keep and bear arms protected by section 13 of this Bill of Rights.
My 10 years in Congress and what I know about Colorado voters lead me to believe that this measure will be adopted by a 60 to 70 percent majority. Victory on Nov. 2 will send a message heard in Washington, D.C., and in that tall building in New York City, the United Nations.
When Colorado adopts this measure, other states will follow. Twenty or more states now permit initiative ballot measures, and any state legislature can pass a resolution with the same message. While non-binding legally, the resolution sends a powerful political message to elected officials, including the United States senators who will eventually vote on any proposed international treaty.
You may hear some people say that the U.N. treaty is only a hypothetical threat, not a real one. That was true until last October, when Hillary Clinton signaled the Obama administration willingness to join the U.N. treaty negotiations. There is a huge lobbying effort behind this proposed treaty with over 200 liberal and pacifist groups pushing for its adoption, groups that regrettably have enormous influence in the Obama White House. It is foolish to underestimate the pressure that will build to agree to the treaty once it achieves political momentum.
Another argument we hear against taking action now is that Secretary Clinton has said the U.S. will participate in the negotiations only if they are “based on consensus.” That statement implies that the U.S. will exercise a veto in the negotiations, yet in truth, the only real-world value of that statement is to mislead and disarm treaty opponents. Moreover, even if never ratified by the United States, the mere existence if a treaty signed by over 100 other nations can be used by leftist judges as a pretext for new interpretations of American law.
Barack Obama will not walk away from a draft U.N. treaty merely because of conflicts with the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. We can see the administration’s back door approach to firearms regulation in its actions against ammunition sales and its readiness to blame Americans for Mexico’s drug violence. A U.N. treaty would give the Obama administration “legal cover” for new restrictions.
Two former U.N. ambassadors, Faith Whittlesey and John Bolton, have expressed serious concerns and have spoken out about the threat posed by the U.N. treaty process. U.N. bureaucrats and hundreds of NGO lobby groups have invested heavily in the treaty. Many nations that already outlaw guns for their own citizens are pushing hard for the treaty, among them Canada, Australia, Japan and the U.K. Argentina, Venezuela and Mexico are also in the forefront.
The stakes are simply too high to gamble that the U.N. treaty process will sputter and fail. A prudent assessment tells us that unless the U.S. changes course, there will be a small-arms treaty submitted to the Senate in 2012.
What can concerned American citizens do about it? Sit by and watch it happen? Or send a strong message to U.S. leaders that any such treaty will meet with overwhelming opposition from the American people?
Nothing gets a politician’s attention as forcefully as the clear voice of We the People. A ballot victory in Colorado will add the powerful voice of the electorate to the voice of organizations that are monitoring U.N. developments.
Patriots who want more information on ways to support this ballot proposal can write me at P. O. Box 27712, Denver, CO 80227.