Do you support the UN's proposed worldwide gun ban?

by Gerard Valentino

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama assured gun owners that he was no threat to gun rights. And so far, his administration has publicly steered clear of the issue. After all, Obama knows that a direct assault on the Second Amendment would be political suicide.

However, behind the scenes, he and his staff have shown support for the U.N. Gun Ban, an international treaty on small arms sales that could sidestep established American gun rights and pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment.

But how could a U.N. Gun Ban affect the rights of Americans?

The United Nations is a favorite weapon used by left-leaning activists to launch stealth attacks on American interests. Over the years, leftist ideologues have tried to empower the U.N. to govern our right to fight just wars and the right to control our own pollution standards. And now this steadily advancing treaty seeks to govern our right to bear arms.

President George W. Bush refused to involve America in any aspect of the U.N. Gun Ban treaty. But the government's position changed when Obama gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the green light to begin the negotiation process.

The risk to American foreign policy interests are unacceptable if the Obama administration decides to make us a party to the treaty. It would destroy our ability to provide arms to non-governmental groups or other nations as we see fit. American businesses would also have their ability to do business in overseas markets destroyed.

The bigger issue for gun rights activists is the treaty's threat to the right of Americans to buy guns for self-defense and sport. Foreign companies that offer great firearms at a lower cost could lose their ability to sell in America, and the flow of gun parts or accessories from overseas could be shut off.

One phrase in the treaty is key to how all this could happen. Being a party to the treaty requires all signatory states to have the "highest possible standards" in place to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals.

You can bet anti-gun forces armed with such a legal provision would find a way to use it as a reason to further regulate gun purchases. Under those circumstances, any statistical lie, no matter how far fetched, could be used as an excuse. For example, the unfounded claim that 90% of guns seized from violent Mexican drug cartels originate in the United States would provide support for harsh gun restrictions on U.S. citizens.

Under the guise of international cooperation, President Obama could try to use the legally binding provisions to shift blame to the U.N. for new anti-gun regulations, arguing that he has no choice but to follow the treaty.

Worse, the Heritage Foundation's assessment of the small arms treaty brings up a horrifying proposition that the theory of "international norms" means the U.S. might be bound by the treaty even if we never sign on.

Basically, once the small arms treaty is accepted by enough nations, the argument can be made that the provisions have become accepted practice and therefore binding on all nations. Based on that logic, America is hurt by the U.N. treaty whether we are a party to it or not.

Such a vague and ill-defined set of circumstances is exactly the type of Trojan horse President Obama needs as cover to inflict his dream of an anti-gun utopia on America.

It is therefore incumbent upon liberty-minded people everywhere not only to oppose American involvement in the treaty, but also to oppose the mere existence of such a treaty.

Barack Obama is the most anti-gun president in history and his anti-gun views are a threat to gun rights. If he can destroy the right to bear arms while cozying up to the U.N., without paying a political price, he will surely do so.