'Tis the season of the un-dead, and the U.N. aims to comply by resurrecting the least-understood threat to the Second Amendment: The United Nations Small Arms Treaty. You thought this was squished last summer, but au contraire...it's still on the table. And there is a direct route that it can take effect.
The threat is real. It must be stopped.
But first, let me explain the maneuvering being done by the current administration. The UN Small Arms Treaty was being negotiated and set to be signed last July 27. Because of public uproar, perhaps including your voice, it was tabled. Not killed. Tabled.
Now the negotiations to prepare the final document are underway again. The way treaties work is that they take legal precedence over individual human rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution if they are not ratified. That may sound counterintuitive, but from a legal perspective, it makes sense. Treaties are binding commitments by an entire nation, and thus cannot be subject to individuals contesting them in court.
Typically, we rely on our elected representatives to not undermine our constitutionally-protected human rights. The current administration, no friend to individual gun ownership nor the Second Amendment, knows that there is no domestic political will for further gun control. Thus, and as has been the alarming habit of Pres. Barack Obama, they will attempt to do so by executive fiat.
The mechanics (video) are this: 60 votes would be needed within the United Nations to adopt the Small Arms Treaty. For the United States to be bound by it, it must be signed by a sitting U.S. President. In theory, the Senate must ratify such treaties, but here's the trick: the United States would be required to act in accordance with the Treaty (not undermine it) if it has been signed by a sitting president, but not ratified by the senate (see the Vienna
Thus, Pres. Obama -- even if he is not re-elected -- could sign the Treaty, and it would effectively become binding even if not ratified by the senate. Senator Harry Reid would not bring it up for a vote because it would affirmatively lose, and therefore be formally rebutted. So Sen. Reid won't do that.
What then? A sitting president would have to formally renounce the signature of President Obama. Pres. Obama, of course, would not do this. I think a President Romney probably would, but the risks to your Second Amendment-protected Right is severe.
Here's what I recommend you do: Dick Morris has organized a peitition that last time around provided 700,000+ signatures to help derail this monster. Go do it again, here:
Please sign this. It's important, and effective.