U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

[Grumpy]

What does this mean to gun owners ? Not sure but if a clinton is involved I would not trust em for all the tea in china...



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty. Continued...


http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...BrandChannel=0

[Charles]

I'm really not sure it does mean for civilian gun owners in the United States, and this article doesn't do a good job of explaining the bill.

But I doubt that it is positive.

Chas

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

What does this mean to gun owners ? Not sure but if a clinton is involved I would not trust em for all the tea in china...

I'd say not a damn thing.

[JJIII]

"Step by step, inch by inch, closer and closer..."

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

"Step by step, inch by inch, closer and closer..."

I am sure this has nothing to do with personal gun ownership within our own country.

Relax.

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I am sure this has nothing to do with personal gun ownership within our own country.

Relax.

I would not be so sure of this

[Sandy G]

Ya wanna bet ?!? I don't trust all this "Backroom Manuvering", & I wouldn't trust the esteemed Madame Secretary in the shithouse w/a muzzle on...The Clintons are nothing if not Machiavellian in their actions, & I'd almost guarantee there's SOME sort of ulterior motive behind this. Whatever it is, it prolly is NOT aimed directly at gun owners, but if we happened to be thrown under the bus in some arcane treaty that benefitted Her Eminence, she'd do it in a heartbeat, so much the better. This is just more of that "International law trumps US domestic law" cock 'n' bull The Enlightened Ones been muttering about..

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I am sure this has nothing to do with personal gun ownership within our own country.

Relax.

I'm interested in hearing the NRA's take on this. If this is the same treaty I'm thinking of, there was a clause which required a license to remanufacture (reload) ammunition...which would directly affect me. Maybe.

Just have to wait and see what the particulars are. But I'm with Grumpy on not trusting Hillary...then again, I don't trust any of 'em a great deal.

Chas

[Twodogs]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

Ya wanna bet ?!? I don't trust all this "Backroom Manuvering", ..

Yeh, WTF happened to "transparency" in government. I even remember a promise about Congress being on CSPAN while writing bills. IMO, this is the most secretive administration in modern history.

[merrylander]

Secretive? Prince Dicky has that honor, anyone ever find out how much of the Energy Bill Enron wrote?