Hmmm… Seems Kerry is continuing on right where Hillary Clinton left off…
JoshuaPundit: On the sidelines of today’s General Assembly, Secretary of State John Kerry is going to sign a UN ‘gun control’ treaty which essentially abrogates our Second Amendment and gives the UN sovereignty over what firearms, if any, American may own.
This is being sold as an anti-terrorism and anti-crime measure, just like all such measures are. But it’s real purpose is simply to disarm law abiding citizens, since criminals and terrorists will always be able to obtain arms when they need them, either from the black market or from state sponsors of terrorism like Iran.
Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. is one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty. He sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water," since the senate already rejected it once and a majority of senators has gone on record against the treaty.
Since it’s a virtual certainty that President Obama is unable to get a two-thirds majority in the senate to ratify it (even Democrats in gun friendly states like Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia wouldn’t vote for it), why is President Obama having Secretary Kerry sign it?
Simple indeed. First, 2014 is coming up in little over a year, and President Obama wants a signed treaty in case a lot more anti Second Amendment senators get elected. And second, and more likely, this most autocratic and lawless of presidents plans on instituting as many of the provisions of the treaty by executive order as possible, citing the UN and the ‘international community as his authority.
That, I’m pretty certain is the ultimate agenda.
UPDATE: It appears that Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker is on top of something for once. He sees this exactly as I do, and sent the president a letter (below) warning him about trying to implement this garbage via executive order.
Letter Sent to President:
Dear President Obama,
It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States. The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.
As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.
Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.
Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.
Senator Bob Corker
Related and Background