News

GOA: Obama Wants More U.N.-Linked Gun Control

Outside the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Gun Owners of America is advising shooters to contact their senators and ask them to oppose what GOA says will be a “framework for a global gun control regime” from the U.N. Small Arms Conference held in Mexico City on August 24.

Outside the United Nations Headquarters in New York.
Outside the United Nations Headquarters in New York.
According to a GOA email alert, White House officials who attended the Mexico U.N. conference will try to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list” in agreements linked to the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which President Obama has signed and is awaiting ratification by the Senate.

GOA asserted that these agreements will require signing nations to participate in “a global gun registration database.” “Over the past century, we have seen registration lists used as a prelude to gun confiscation in countries like Rwanda, Cambodia, and many more,” the GOA e-mail said. “Gun confiscation, in turn, led to horrific genocides in many of these countries — including Rwanda and Cambodia.” “Imagine dictators around the world—who can control the UN blue helmets (aka, the UN military force)—having your name on record as a gun owner. It’s preposterous! And this is why the senate must kill this toxic agreement,” the release concluded.GOA-Logo GOA further urged gun owners to contact their senators and tell them to vote against any agreement reached at the Mexico U.N. conference.

Click here to see the GOA release. Click here to see a list of contact information for all U.S. senators. Click the links below to see our previous coverage of the issue.

Would your senators vote to approve the U.N. Small Arms Treaty or any additional agreements related to the pending document? Tell us where you think your state’s U.S. senators will land on these gun-control issues so other Shooter’s Log readers can know who’s for them and who’s against them.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (53)

  1. It may not be what passes but the long drawn out argument in this economic slumping world of who is going to foot he bill and supply all the man-power to enforce such. Any volunteers?? With a $13 Trillion deficit–probably not us.

  2. True. The Bricker Amendment, which failed in 1954. The movement was to magnify existing case law as Missouri v. Holland. In this case it was found that a treaty is invalid if it infringes on the Constitution. Regardless of the reason for cases, there are many more that state the same thing. For a treaty to be valid, it must not infringe on the Constitution. The amendment is commonly referred to as the Bricker Movement, but opens up a whole realm of case law that it came from.

  3. Having worked private security in Africa and many other places around the world for many years, I can tell you that troops the UN might be able to command are brutal, but they are not good. We need to consider a few things here:

    1. I honestly feel that American gun owners are more competent than any UN troops that could ever be deployed here.

    2. They may have heavy weapons, but most US troops would not stand by and let foreign troops subjugate Americans.

    3. This is a pretty far fetched, although I admit, not impossible scenario. What Third World cesspool country (and yes, I know the politically correct term is ‘Developing Nation’) in their right mind would ever think they could deploy troops here and have any of them come home alive.

    But in the end, I say “Bring it!”

    Because once it starts, it will never end until we are all dead, or the United States of America is back in the hands of the American people.

    1. @ Joe.

      The problem with the Bricker Amendment is. It was NEVER Ratified into LAW. From 1951 to 1959, the Bricker Amendment was Introduced, Revised, and Re-Revised at least 50-times. Senator John W. Bricker, GAVE-UP in 1959, the Year he retired from the Senate. President Eisenhower NEVER liked the Bill, so he NEVER Signed it into LAW…

  4. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: “The President of the United States of America shall have power, By and With the Advise and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, Provided Two-Third’s of the Senators Present Concur”.

    The House of Representatives are a MOOT Point, They Have NO SAY in the Matter. ONLY the Senate DOES…

    1. @ Secundius,

      You recall incorrectly. Obama ordered it signed by Secretary of State John Kerry on Sept. 25, 2013.

    2. @ G-Man.

      It was SIGNED 25 September 2013, BUT IT WAS NEVER RATIFIED, SIR.
      So, technically speaking WERE NOT ON THE LIST, SIR.

      You don’t have a Treaty, Until you RATIFY IT.

      JUST LOOK AT THE KOREAN WAR, SIR. IT WAS SIGNED IN 1953, BUT NEVER RATIFIED. So Technically Speaking, WERE STILL AT WAR WITH NORTH KOREA…

    3. @ Secundius,

      I am quite aware of the differences between “RATIFICATION” and “SIGNING” a treaty. And given I am quite aware of the distinct differences, I assumed you did as well. I was simply correcting your incorrect recollection that specifically stated, “…United States of America. Was one of 59 Countries THAT DIDN’T Sign the UN Small Arms Treaty.”

      Based on your actual wording that limited your statement to only a “Signing”, I had every reason to logically think that was your intended point, and therefore correcting you was appropriate. No where did you mention “RATIFICATION” which as even you’ve pointed out is two distinctly separate processes. How could you not see your response to me was not warranted?

      As well, I am probably more aware of the Korean Conflict than most given I served military duty there for over a year. Sir…

    4. @ G-Man.

      As I recall from your Radio Day’s on WJFK Radio in Fairfax City, VA. You said you were a Stateside “AA or AAA” Artillery Officer, 2nd Lieutenant. But NEVER actually served in the Korean Conflict for Medical Reasons, of which I can’t remember why.

      We (the USA) also Signed the Nuremberg Accords of 1946-49, but were NEVER RATIFIED by us (the USA). Acknowledging Something and Agreeing to Something are TWO DIFFERENT THING’S, Sir…

    5. @ Secundius,

      In response to your first paragraph, I have no idea what you are talking about. You have confused me with someone else entirely.

      As for you second paragraph, it is obvious you refuse to extend me the courtesy of acknowledging your error. Your original comment only ever specifically addressed “signing” the UN Small Arms Treaty and nothing about “ratification”. Continuing to attempt to divert attention to your mistake by bringing up other historic signings is pointless.

      Either have the courage and courtesy to admit you were wrong or drop it. There is really nothing further to be gleaned from this tasteless exchange of yours. And do me a favor and spare me the apologies when you sober up tomorrow, there is just no excuse for such behavior.

  5. Folks, I’m stating the utter obvious truth but we must recognize that it’s not a particular news cycle, story or single event that should concern and mobilize us against the Antis absolute incessant assault on this Great Nation’s Second Amendment, it is their 24/7 365 minute by minute devious scheme to strip every law-abiding American Citizen of their Constitutional Rights…And yes, the Left is out to set fire to the entire United States Constitution understanding all too well that first and foremost they must nix The Second Amendment to The Bill of Rights if they are to succeed in the nullifying the rest…

    We the People must continue to fight the Antis via all mediums–anything less and the very forums here in which we debate such will be a ‘thing of the past…’

  6. are you folks willing to do what Washington did? Our founding fathers would expect no less from you or any American generation.

    1. @ steve b.

      Could you be more specific, George Washington did many things. I never own a Whiskey Distillery before, Arthritis is BAD. But then again “Three Shot’s of Whiskey, Will Keep the Arthritis At Bay”.

    2. I can answer that, we must defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic (Obama) and be prepared to stand our ground. I am an Oath Keeper and we say “Not On Our Watch”

    3. @ Rob Ruk.

      I wouldn’t exactly call that a Fair Assessment of George Washington. Considering he sent in the Troop’s to break-up the Whiskey Rebellion/Insurrection in March 1791. Where 4 were Killed and a ~170 were Captured, and at least 2 Innocent Bystanders were also Killed…

    4. I do not need a history lesson from you, I was making a non-specific comment on why we need to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Why must you take general comments and make it about how much you know? When I need to know and comment on a historical question I will Google it. You must be an Obamacrat!

    5. @ Rob Ruk

      “Oath Keepers”, Right. Militia that know history, even though they have got a CLUE on how to Implement It. Oaf Krappers, Baaarrrfff

    6. @ ToDrunkToWrite,

      Nope, even less comprehensible than your first statement. Doubt you’ll know what you meant by the time you sober up either. Your intended meaning will simply remain lost to the world forever I suppose. No big loss though.

    7. I am a Marine Veteran and have sworn an Oath to uphold the Constitution. Have you sacrificed anything for our country? Probably not! When you can form a coherent sentence then come at me, until then let the grown ups handle things. You have freedoms because of men and women like me, so , stir the pot all you want and have your laughs.

    8. @ Rob Ruk

      To me the “Oath Keepers”, are No Different then the “Hell’s Angel’s” or the “Pagan’s” or even MS-13.

    9. When was the last time you heard that an Oath Keeper started a fight, did a drive by or doing drug deals and selling it to kids? Never! All we want is for our Leaders to do the right thing and stop trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens. We never talk about how to overthrow the Government. Not knowing is ignorance, knowing and still arguing a wrong point is stupidity.

    10. @ Rob Ruk.

      There was an Incident reported by the Mat-Su Valley Frontierman in Alaska in 1996, about Two Good Gun Volunteer’s, that were suppose to prevent Looting in the Parks Highway Forest Fire and Subsequent Robberies of approximately 35 homes. Later investigation by the Wasilla Police, concluded that 32-guns were Stolen and about $10K dollars in Rare Coins. Were conducted by the “Two Good Guy’s” aka Oath Keepers. Little incident’s like that, do tend to be Forgotten especially by those that wish to FORGET.

    11. @ TooDrunkToWrite,

      I doubt you have any idea how utterly ridiculous you are. The Oath Keepers were not even founded until March 2009.

      Your complete pathetically unassociated example citing a couple of rogue citizens is synonymous with believing a couple of bad cops means all cops are as bad as Hells Angels, or a couple of physicians believing it’s okay to bilk Medicare makes all doctors categorically pagans, and a few school teachers that molest surely must mean they all molest and should be rounded up like MS-13 sporting a gang tattoo.

      I’d quite while I was behind because the more you write, the less credible you become.

    12. @ G-Man.

      Officially the National Tea Party Federation, didn’t exist until April 8, 2010. And yet they operated Website’s in 2002. Explain that Chief!

    13. G-Man is the last person that I would start a pissing match with, so take your losses, tuck tail and run you CANNOT win a battle of intelligence!

    14. @ TooDrunkToWrite,

      I really don’t care to as it has nothing in any capacity to do with Oath Keepers in any comprehensible context.

      Step away from the sauce.

    15. That is easy to explain. The usteaparty.com website was founded in 2002, and teaparty.org website was founded in 2004. The National Tea Party Federation, which is a coalition of all the tea party’s, didn’t start building a website until 2009 with their founding in 2010.

    16. Oath Keepers was not around at that time, we were founded in March of 2009. You could of at the very least looked on our website. Even if I gave you a clue you would not know what to do with it.

    17. @ Rob Ruk.

      Well then there two claiming to be something they clearly weren’t. Like Fools claiming to be Hell’Angel’s Members of Pagan Members, wearing Colors that can get you Killed. Oh, What or Why do the Oath Keepers need a “Gatling Gun” for? Just curious.

    18. We as a group do not need a Gatling gun, and by the way you can’t just go out and buy one on a whim. Dealers are allowed to own fully automatic weapons not some Joe Blow.. Some find beauty in cars some in guns, especially those that have historical value. You could compare it to owning a Model-T or rare coins.

    19. @ Rob Ruk

      If that’s true, why have the Oath Keeper’s been trying to acquire a Dillon Aero M134D Minigun since 2013. I know GE turned you guy down and i suspect Dillon did too. So you guy tried going through a Third Party like Bud’s Gun Shop. But they turned you down too. If you Guy’s HATE America so much, why do you Bank with Bank of (Fascist) America.

    20. @ Rob Ruk

      For an enlightened and open organization, the Oath Keeper’s seem to have a lot too HIDE. Your Oath Keeper’s Website say’s your open to all believer’s, apparently NOT. The OK’s are starting to bore me anyway.

    21. All Believers? try oathkeepers.org, If I were you I would stop trying to ambush people with ridiculous facts, face it your just not that smart! Go back to drinking and pass out maybe that will reboot your brain.

    22. I try not to knock an association without knowing anything about it. It is my understanding the Oath Keepers is former military, police, first responders defending the original oath to defend the Constitution they took.

  7. Obama, and every other Liberal politician will try to destroy the Constitution and disarm Americans in any way they can.

    The goal is absolute control. They achieve that with the welfare crowd by making them dependent on the government . . . and we’ve seen how well that works in Europe when the government runs out of money to support them.

    For the rest of us who try to work and be self reliant . . . we are enemies of the Liberal mindset.

    Fight!

    Don’t say you’;re vote doesn’t count. Vote. Support GOA, NAGR and the NRA. Make these worms fight every inch of the way.

    1. Correct. The fascists will NEVER STOP attempting to completely control the population of this collection of sovereign States. They never give up, they never think the job is done. Little by little, whether things go backward or forward for them, they keep up with old tactics and find new ones to convince the people that guns are bad and that only government can save them and feed them. REGISTRATION = CONFISCATION = DEATH.

  8. I have already contacted my U.S. Senator and Representatives asking them to vote against it. I believe they will stand against it and support the 2nd Amendment. The world as we know it is really a hostile environment.

    1. Just because one nation puts Thumbs Up, doesn’t mean that any issue has passed the vote of the entire General Assembly of the U.N. Economics reports of many nations indicate they are not financially capable of providing troops to protect their own county let alone some other country. We Americans has been griping that We spend too much of our taxes playing world police for many years.
      Language would be a substantial barrier for any coordinated effort. Many U.N. Troop trucks would become victims of head-on vehicle crashes. Remember most of them drive on the wrong side of our streets.
      Contrasting white letters against a blue helmet would make a great aiming point for a sniper from any country.
      Disarming the entire world would be an astronomical undertaking. Reports: 80 Million AKs now in circulation, 10 million guns mfg in the U.S., and an unknown number of guns having been manufactured in all the other world countries.
      Local Police would be swamped for a very long time just collecting “Stolen Gun” reports from American gun owners. It’s required by law in most localities.
      Beware! Like Lt. John Dunbar (Dances with Wolves) those guns may be dug up when needed at a later time. Help from “Smiles A Lot”

  9. Obama WILL attempt to register all guns in America if he possibly can. Both democrats and republicans will largely go along with this because we no longer have representatives in Mordor on the Potomac, we have a small group of people who think they are the ruling elite. They are also afraid of the population at large. In the coming economic collapse engineered by our worthless federal government, our representatives, senators, president and much of federal bureaucracy will be insulated from the disaster they created with monetized debt and the forced control over the banking system. This UN small arms treaty will be sold as something that will not abrogate the 2nd amendment, nor lead to the confiscation of guns from the unwashed public. Maybe not in the immediate aftermath of the signing, but every single time guns are registered in the world it has led to confiscation of those guns – EVERY TIME. It will be no different here. Believe it or not, even here in supposedly gun and self defense friendly Texas, there are laws on the books that state something like this: “In the event of wide spread natural disaster or an overwhelming economic crisis, the State is authorized to take citizens guns.” Obama will sign this evil UN document. We’re moving ever closer to re-education camps and federal control of all resources. Control the food, control the people.

    1. @ SEAN KENDALL

      Gun REGISTRATION has in least in part been around since 1637. With the Introduction of the Royal Charter of the London Company of Gunmakers. Then came the Gun Barrel Proofing Act of 1868, from the time a Firearm is Manufactured and Distributed to Various Gun Dealer Around the World. A “Gun Barrel Proof” is performed on EVER Firearm Made, Anywhere. The Manufacturer has 28-days to submit a sample or copy of Every Proof to a Proofing House. There’s ONLY ONE, and it is located in Burmingham, England. NUMBER “ONE” REGISTRY. Firearms Dealer INSURES his/hers Firearms with an Insurance Company. NUMBER “TWO” REGISTRY. Gun Dealer SELL’s to Customer, and paper work is filled out. NUMBER “THREE” REGISTRY. Customer Gets Insurance against THEFT. NUMBER “FOUR” REGISTRY. Somebody Steals Your Firearm, You Make Police Report to be able to Collect Insurance Payout. NUMBER “FIVE” REGISTRY. Starting to See the Picture NOW

    2. @ Mikial

      Thank’s, some don’t want or care to see the Obvious. That Virtually anything or everything you do, Leaves a Paper Trail (aka Registration). I hear that Sec. Caught Five. No Nibble’s from my End Yet. I Hope We Can Talk Again. V.P.R.P. (Vivat Primum Rei Publicae).

  10. GOA, like the NRA loves to wave the specter of proposed gun control where there is a remote risk of it being enacted. In the case of the UN Gun Treaty, the U.S. Senate, even when Democrat-dominated, rejected this treaty explicitly. Under the Constitution, only the Senate can give “advice and consent.” to a treaty. Without advice and concent, the U.S. is not bound. Here, the Senate has steadfastly refused to give consent. Therefore, there is no legal basis for implimenting the treaty here. Even if the Senate had passed the treaty, the Constitution remains the Supreme Law of the Land and would overrule the treaty.

    1. Sivispace: The powers that be are moving ever close to completely ignoring the entire Constitution. See my comment above. If we get one or two more socialist supreme court judges confirmed all precedent will be ignored. The plain language of the Constitution is ignored on a regular basis. Read article 3 of the Constitution creating the supreme court; there isn’t any mention of “interpreting” the plain language of the Constitution. Our entire federal system is almost irretrievably out of control. The federal bureaucracy knows NO LIMITS.

    2. @ Sivispace,

      While I very much appreciate your confidence and belief in the assumed protections provided by our Constitution, I must simply state that it will not be enough in this case.

      For the Constitution to mean a thing or have the effect of force, one must respect it. Obama simply does not have such respect, which has resulted in a president that has tested and successfully exceeded the limits of our Constitutional boundaries at every turn, and gotten away with it where it hurts us most.

      This has happened because the modern day defenders of the Constitution, namely Congress, who are the primary caretakers sworn and tasked with upholding every word of it, simply never anticipated such an immense challenge to their authority and are therefore sorely unprepared to effectively combat all that Obama has thrown at them.

      Obama is not so much winning each round, but rather it is more that Congress is failing to effectively meet every challenge or issue Obama presents, and so, Obama prevails in the end. It isn’t really even a result of inaction by Congress, given there is a lot of grandstanding, but that is where it ends. No one in Congress ever seriously follows through against Obama (or his administration) with any meaningful prosecution.

      And so goes the U.S. signing of the U.N. Arms Treaty regardless. Signed even after Congress sent their “advice and consent” in an official written letter which explicitly renounced the treaty by the majority of the Senate. When that failed, the Senate held a formal vote which passed a bill amendment to stop the US from joining the UN Arms Treaty, but it was vetoed by Obama and the Treaty was signed anyway.

      Congress overwhelmingly provided “advice and consent” to the president by speaking as the representative majority voice of the people from each State, yet Obama refused to hear the people and unilaterally signed this treaty anyway.

      Like so many other blatant Constitutional violations Obama has gotten away with, make no mistake, Obama will also unilaterally proceed as if this Treaty was in full effect; and Congress will be powerless to do a thing about it… as usual.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.