SIFTA - Arms Trade Treaty

  • News
  • Thread starter Alfi
  • Start date
  • #1
Alfi

Main Question or Discussion Point

lol - yes it's another gun control thread. but with a particular question about a particular treaty.
http://www.armstradetreaty.org/att/att.framework.pdf
http://armstradetreaty.org/att/why.we.need.an.att.pdf

Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of And Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, And Other Related Materials (SIFTA) ...
Some people seem to go ballistic when this issue is debated, stating that it is against the 2'nd amendment.
I don't see it as an attack on legal gun ownership, other than a slippery slope argument.

Can someone point out ( other than Lou Dobbs ) how it's so terrible an idea?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o&feature=player_embedded
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
drankin
I understand the reasoning behind it but it's a terrible idea. Basically, you are allowing other governments to have information on US citizens that are not criminals. It's absolutely rediculous. And people thought the last administrations wiretapping was wrong.

Restricting the sale of firearms outside of the US, sure. But, subjecting US citizens that never even leave US soil to international law is complete BS. An international registry? Hell no. First it's guns, then what? Slippery slope? This is a cliff.
 
  • #3
Alfi
drankin said:
Basically, you are allowing other governments to have information on US citizens that are not criminals.
I not sure what information you mean.
Are you saying that if you want to sell a bunch of arms to another country you should be able to do it anonymously?

drankin said:
But, subjecting US citizens that never even leave US soil to international law is complete BS.
The products do.
Are you saying that products that leave the US should not be subject to international laws?
 
  • #4
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
23,841
6,288
The products do.
The products might. That's the difference.
 
  • #5
Alfi
The products might. That's the difference.
I must be slow this morning. I don't see what you're pointing out.
 
  • #6
drankin
I not sure what information you mean.
Are you saying that if you want to sell a bunch of arms to another country you should be able to do it anonymously?

The products do.
Are you saying that products that leave the US should not be subject to international laws?
Read my post again and I apologize if I wasn't clear. By "information" I'm speaking about the US gun registry being handed over to an international gun registry.

No I'm not saying that if I want to sell a bunch of arms to another country it should be anonymous. What this treaty says is that the fact that I'm a US registered gun owner that that information should be available to other countries. It's bad enough I have to be registered to my own government (topic of another discussion).

And finally, no, I am not saying that products that leave the US should not be subject to international laws.
 
  • #7
Alfi
Thanks for the follow up drankin.
What this treaty says is that the fact that I'm a US registered gun owner that that information should be available to other countries.
I think I may be getting confused about the difference between an individual buying a legal firearm for personal use, and an organization wanting to sell arms abroad for profit.
I didn't notice any clear reference in the outline about your concern, and I also didn't notice any clause about the lumping of the two registries together. Could you please point these out for me?
It's a work in progress and I agree that those are points that should be addressed as it gets fleshed out.

I am under the impression that the proposed international registry would be for dealers, as opposed to individual citizen ownership. And in that, I am all for knowing who is selling what, to whom and where.
Americans as well as Canadians are getting killed with weapons that were provided by someone, from somewhere.
Where do these pirates and insurgents get RPG's ! Ebay?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
drankin
Thanks for the follow up drankin.


I think I may be getting confused about the difference between an individual buying a legal firearm for personal use, and an organization wanting to sell arms abroad for profit.
I didn't notice any clear reference in the outline about your concern, and I also didn't notice any clause about the lumping of the two registries together. Could you please point these out for me?
It's a work in progress and I agree that those are points that should be addressed as it gets fleshed out.

I am under the impression that the proposed international registry would be for dealers, as opposed to individual citizen ownership. And in that, I am all for knowing who is selling what, to whom and where.
Americans as well as Canadians are getting killed with weapons that were provided by someone, from somewhere.
Where do these pirates and insurgents get RPG's ! Ebay?
The RPG is a Russian weapon. RPGs are not manufactured in North America.

"Article 6 deals with implementation at the international level, requiring the establishment of an International Registry of
International Arms Transfers. It also provides that Contracting Parties shall submit to the International Registry an annual
report on arms transfers from or through their territory
or subject to their authorization and that the International Registry
will publish annual and other periodic reports as appropriate on international arms transfers. Specific details of Contracting
Parties’ reporting obligations as well as any additional international implementation measures may be addressed in
protocols to the Convention."

There you go, Alfi.
 
  • #9
Alfi
from or through their territory
thanks, I interrupted territory as country.
As in It's a good idea to know that 25 guns came from A to B then on to C
The guns went through territory B and that is something that should be traced.


Though I still don't see how this has much to do with private ownership. Just sales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
299
1
It also provides that Contracting Parties shall submit to the International Registry an annual report on arms transfers from or through their territory
I think you might be misreading that drankin. It doesn't say anything about arms transfers within or into their territory. The way I'm reading that (and the way I hope it was intended) was that they would provide a report of the arms leaving the country (whether they were locally made or not), while leaving internal control/reporting up to the individual parties.
 
  • #11
I wonder if the following would be acceptable:

Gun owners in the international registry are identified only by an encrypted code, and only the country of origin has access to the decryption key to convert the code into a persons name, address, etc and will only do the decrypting if it is warranted by the circumstances.

Something similar can, and should in my opinion, be used inside the US to protect the privacy of gun owners e.g. a judge would look at the evidence and grant the authorization to decrypt the ownership information for a weapon. That way the registry is only used to track guns back to people, and can't be used as a list of people who are suspects by virtue of their gun ownership.
 
  • #12
drankin
I think you might be misreading that drankin. It doesn't say anything about arms transfers within or into their territory. The way I'm reading that (and the way I hope it was intended) was that they would provide a report of the arms leaving the country (whether they were locally made or not), while leaving internal control/reporting up to the individual parties.
You may be right on that. The wording should be a little more specific if they want the US to buy into it.

I really don't think this is a treaty the US should bother with anyhow. Arms are prevailant here but arms trade from the US borders is not. The mexican border is certainly something that needs to be addressed but I don't see why we need an international treaty to fix that. The laws are in place, they just need to be enforced.
 
  • #13
Alfi
I keep seeing the phase 'gun owners' in regards to the topic. It confuses me.
Everything I read in the framework is for the sales and manufacturing of arms.
Illicit Manufacturing of And Trafficking of arms to be specific.
I still fail to see how this treaty would have anything to do with honest gun owners.

Would this treaty be more palatable to people if it only covered the other items listed?
As in only the large items as defined in sec iii and iv ( bolded by me )

Article 7
[Definitions xix]
For the purpose of this Convention “Arms” shall refer to:
i) All items listed on the munitions list of the Wassenaar Arrangement on
Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and
Technologies. i
ii) Small Arms including revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines,
sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns
iii) Light Weapons including heavy machine guns; hand held-under barrel and
mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns
(sometimes
mounted), portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles (sometimes mounted);
portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems (sometimes
mounted); portable launchers of anti-aircraft systems; mortars of calibers
less than 100 mm.

iv) Ammunition and Explosives including cartridges (rounds) for small arms
and shells and missiles for light weapons; mobile containers with missiles
or shells for single action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems, anti-personnel
and anti-tank hand grenades; landmines; and explosives.


Are these items (that I would imagine are not used for personal defence like a hand gun), at issue? Or is it just the inclusion of the small arms that gives people hesitation?
 
  • #14
drankin
I keep seeing the phase 'gun owners' in regards to the topic. It confuses me.
Everything I read in the framework is for the sales and manufacturing of arms.
Illicit Manufacturing of And Trafficking of arms to be specific.
I still fail to see how this treaty would have anything to do with honest gun owners.

Would this treaty be more palatable to people if it only covered the other items listed?
As in only the large items as defined in sec iii and iv as bolded by me

Article 7
[Definitions xix]
For the purpose of this Convention “Arms” shall refer to:
i) All items listed on the munitions list of the Wassenaar Arrangement on
Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and
Technologies. i
ii) Small Arms including revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines,
sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns
iii) Light Weapons including heavy machine guns; hand held-under barrel and
mounted grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft guns
(sometimes
mounted), portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles (sometimes mounted);
portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems (sometimes
mounted); portable launchers of anti-aircraft systems; mortars of calibers
less than 100 mm.

iv) Ammunition and Explosives including cartridges (rounds) for small arms
and shells and missiles for light weapons; mobile containers with missiles
or shells for single action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems, anti-personnel
and anti-tank hand grenades; landmines; and explosives.


Are these items, that I would imagine, are not used for personal defence like a hand gun, at issue?
Why would we bind ourselves to this treaty? It doesn't involve the US. We don't manufacture and distribute AK-47s and RPG's, which are the primary weapons pirates and Al Qaeda run around with. Why bind ourselves to international regulations that have the capacity to extradite US citizens? Don't we have enough law here to take care of our own criminals?
 
  • #15
Alfi
drankin said:
Why would we bind ourselves to this treaty? It doesn't involve the US. We don't manufacture and distribute AK-47s and RPG's,
You guys must be making and exporting something to rank #1 on the list



From the original link: http://armstradetreaty.org/att/why.we.need.an.att.pdf
page 5

Leading Arms Exporters
United States
Russia
France
Germany
United Kingdom
China
Israel
Italy
Ukraine
Sweden
Italy
Spain
Finland
Canada
Netherlands
Belarus
Brazil
South Africa
(CRS Report 2003, pp. 75-81)
 
  • #16
drankin
You guys must be making and exporting something to rank #1 on the list



From the original link: http://armstradetreaty.org/att/why.we.need.an.att.pdf
page 5

Leading Arms Exporters
United States
Russia
France
Germany
United Kingdom
China
Israel
Italy
Ukraine
Sweden
Italy
Spain
Finland
Canada
Netherlands
Belarus
Brazil
South Africa
(CRS Report 2003, pp. 75-81)
Well, that is a good point. The arms we export obviously aren't the problem. We definatly do not export AK-47s, FALs, RPGs which are the weapons of Al Qeada, pirates, etc. We don't need a treaty on the weapons we export. (I'm curious of what these particular arms are that make us #1).
 
  • #17
drankin
And take a look at distributor #2! Russia, the designer of the AK-47, and RPG! We aren't the nation that needs to tie our hands with a treaty. Apparently our system does not lend itself to exporting arms to the criminal element abroad.
 
  • #18
Alfi
We definatly do not export AK-47s, FALs, RPGs which are the weapons of Al Qeada, pirates, etc.
So there would be no fear of innocent American manufacturers having information released to an International registry then.
Apparently our system does not lend itself to exporting arms to the criminal element abroad.
I'm not quite so convinced of that, but if no one looks no one will know.
 
  • #19
drankin
So there would be no fear of innocent American manufacturers having information released to an International registry then.
I'm not quite so convinced of that, but if no one looks no one will know.
Alfi, that is not a reason to enter into a international treaty. US manufactured firearms are not the weapon of use by pirates and Al Qaeda. You are arguing "why not", I'm arguing why commit to a treaty that is not relavent? Why bind your country to a treaty that it has no need of? And, potentially allow an outside entity prosecute citizens of your own country?
 
  • #20
299
1
Well, that is a good point. The arms we export obviously aren't the problem. We definatly do not export AK-47s, FALs, RPGs which are the weapons of Al Qeada, pirates, etc. We don't need a treaty on the weapons we export. (I'm curious of what these particular arms are that make us #1).
I would imagine a good portion of that are hunting and sport shooting rifles to Canada and the rest of the western world.
 
  • #21
4,239
1
Well, that is a good point. The arms we export obviously aren't the problem. We definatly do not export AK-47s, FALs, RPGs which are the weapons of Al Qeada, pirates, etc. We don't need a treaty on the weapons we export. (I'm curious of what these particular arms are that make us #1).
These arms are anything that falls under ITAR (International Trafficing in Arms Regulation), I imagine. Tanks, aircraft, missiles, any military equipment and their replacement parts, and any dual use subsystem, say a linear actuator that is used on an Falcon to deploy flaps that is also used on a civilian aircraft.

I notice that the draft treaty doesn't define 'territory', which is central to your issue with it. At this point it could be anything they want it to be--states, counties, etc. If they manage to define it as statelike divisions, you would show up on the list list after buying a peashooter from out of state with a dealer that also sells slingshots to Bolivia.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
23,841
6,288
You guys must be making and exporting something to rank #1 on the list
Aircraft and naval vessels stricken from the registry. (It doesn't take too many warships to make up for millions of rifles)
 
  • #23
Alfi
Good conversation drankin.
I started with a question and I think I got an answer.

Q. Can someone point out ( other than Lou Dobbs ) how it's so terrible an idea?
A. It's not our arms exporters that are a problem.

Fair enough. Thanks.
 
  • #24
drankin
Thanks for the question, Alfi. I wasn't aware of this treaty idea before you brought it up.
 
  • #25
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
Q. Can someone point out ( other than Lou Dobbs ) how it's so terrible an idea?
A. It's not our arms exporters that are a problem.

Fair enough. Thanks.
Fair enough, if it were true. But that's not easily defended. US made guns find their way to Mexican drug cartels and the Taliban (through Afghan govt sources) on a pretty regular basis. Likewise with insurgent groups in Iraq, via Iraqi police and military units. Last year (or thereabouts) there was a story about Us manufactured bullets recovered from rebel groups in the Congo. Until only a couple of years ago, the US was exporting small arms to Venezuela. And since at least the 70s, it has been selling rifles and ammo to countries like Albania, Greece, Bosnia, Macedonia, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and a number of African countries (notably, not Somalia, unless I'm mistaken, but possibly to Ethiopia).


Recent news stories:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/us/15guns.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/taliban-using-us-manufactured-arms-leaked-by-afghan-troops-nyt_100194826.html
 

Related Threads for: SIFTA - Arms Trade Treaty

Replies
45
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
8K
Top