The General Assembly of the United Nations approved the Arms Trade Treaty by an overwhelming margin on April 2.

The U.S. representative within the U.N. voted for the treaty, despite the U.S. Senate passing a measure to reject ratifying it domestically last month.

What does the treaty mean for our Second Amendment rights? Nothing — or so we are told by those who have aggressively opposed these rights.

Others who do not want to see these rights dismantled have identified many troubling aspects of the treaty.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton pointed out that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

And while the movement against the treaty is largely led by Republicans, their Second Amendment concerns are echoed by many Democrats.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Ala.) stated the treaty does not differentiate between domestic trade and international trade.

“That treaty melds it all together,” he said. “Therefore, it does infringe and jeopardize the Second Amendment rights of this country.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also said he would not support the treaty because it doesn’t do enough to “uphold the rights of Americans.”

That’s because the treaty only recognizes the private ownership of firearms for “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities,” completely ignoring the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The treaty also mandates that countries keep records of the quantity, value and model of firearms and their “end users” for at least 10 years. This could lead to a national firearms registry detailing all firearms and their owners, which is currently prohibited by federal law.

The Obama administration’s efforts to ratify the treaty, though at odds with our own Constitution, will come up short — at least for now.

In order for the treaty to be ratified in the United States, it must be approved by three-fourths of the Senate, which will not happen anytime soon.

And though the president is expected to sign the treaty this summer, it still needs the votes in the Senate to be ratified domestically. However, once the treaty is signed, it will remain perpetually available for a future Senate to ratify.

It seems that for the Obama administration, the treaty’s biggest plus is not at home, but abroad.

The treaty prohibits the export of arms to regimes deemed guilty of human rights violations and other crimes against humanity.

Proponents of the treaty point to the situation in Syria, saying the treaty could prevent conflicts like the brutal civil war there.

In reality, the treaty would only make it easier for the United States and its allies to overthrow governments like Syria, which it has tried to do by supporting the Islamic extremist rebels there and elsewhere.

In a Feb. 13 article of The Daily Orange, I outlined how the U.S. government not only helped spark the uprising in Syria, but also continues to support al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated rebels there.

President Barack Obama even secretly allowed Qatar, a known sponsor of terrorism, to arm rebels in both Syria and Libya, according to a 2012 New York Times article.

Interestingly enough, a glaring loophole in the treaty allows for the United States and its allies to continue doing just that: arming terrorists and non-state actors.

Countries like Syria will be deemed by the United States and its allies in the U.N. as having committed war crimes and the like, and will no longer be able to import weapons to defend themselves. At the same time, the United States and its allies will be free to continue giving weapons to the rebels overthrowing the government.

What about all of our allies with dismal human rights conditions or who openly support terrorism, like Bahrain, Qatar or Saudi Arabia? Will we stop exporting weapons to them?

Nah, they’re cool. They’re with us.

Nick Smith is a junior broadcast and digital journalism major. His column appears weekly. He can been reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @Nick_X_Smith.

Published on April 10, 2013 at 1:50 am