Congressman Morgan Griffith on the UN gun control treaty

by Lewis Loflin

March 18, 2013:

Last year, a number of my constituents contacted me to express concerns about the Small Arms Treaty being considered by the United Nations (U.N.). They believed that the treaty would infringe on their Second Amendment rights, and I agreed. I oppose this treaty and any other that could potentially infringe on the inalienable rights laid out by the Constitution.

Original negotiations over the treaty failed in July. One of the reasons why I believe the negotiations failed is that the Obama Administration did not want the final negotiations taking place during the height of the President's campaign for reelection. Many suspected the negotiations would resume if President Obama were reelected. The Arms Trade Treaty entered final negotiations at the U.N. on Monday, March 18, 2013.

As a Virginian, not on my watch do we cede away our Bill of Rights to the U.N. We must protect those liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - those liberties that were guaranteed by the Virginians who refused to ratify the Constitution without the right to petition the government, without the right of free speech, without the freedom of religion, and without the right to bear arms.

I remain opposed to the Arms Trade Treaty, and joined 122 of my colleagues in the House in co-sponsoring a concurrent resolution that expresses our opposition. A companion resolution in the Senate has earned the support of 29 Senators.

The Administration should not even be participating in U.N. negotiations that could lead to an international treaty that could undermine the Bill of Rights or infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens.

Mr. Griffith represents Virginia's 9th. Congressional District.

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it

Update September 25, 2013 - Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement...U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate. He claimed the treaty raises "fundamental issues" concerning "individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Full article at

But is this overblown hype? Many Americans mistrust and revile the U.N. and for good reasons. Kerry and Obama claim this has nothing to do with the 2nd. Amendment and is specific in protecting it, but the real question is do we trust these people? I think opponents have overblown this issue, but I must also ask how do they even propose to enforce such a treaty to begin with? Launch another illegal undeclared war like Libya?

It's also very clear the Progressive-left reviles private gun ownership as a threat to its power. President Obama has made it clear he wants strict control over private gun ownership.

This is touted as an international arms control treaty by an administration that allowed thousands of illegal guns into Mexico. That made U.S. internal policy on firearm ownership clearly into an international issue. Take that statement for what it's worth.

Why is Obama even wasting his time on this? Keith Wagstaff said it well:

Ultimately, conservatives don't have much to worry about, seeing as U.S. ratification requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate - a threshold that, even with a Democratic majority, isn't likely to be met. Chalk up another victory for freedom.


Lewis Frog

Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.