Out of concern for the U.N. gun ban treaty I wrote some letters...

[2fat2fly]

I sent the exact same letter to Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown with regards to my concerns about the gun ban treaty that the obamanation (your president) immediately started pursuing on November 7 (the day after the election).

I thought you guys might be interested in the responses I got from them.

Here's Rob Portman's response:

Dear Mike,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the ratification of United Nations treaties during the 112 th Congress. It is good to hear from you.

As you may know, on September 20, 2012, I joined 36 Senators in sending a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid objecting to the consideration of any treaties for the remainder of the year. Given that a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate is needed to ratify a treaty, we have commitments from more than enough Senators to prevent ratification.

I am concerned that attempts to ratify any treaty during the lame-duck session will prevent newly elected Senators from having the opportunity to thoroughly review the treaties outstanding at the time of their election in November. Additionally, I believe that the 112 th Congress must diligently work for the remainder of the year to address our nation's growing debt, prevent tax increases, and mitigate the devastating impact of the spending cuts on defense programs under sequestration.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact my office. For more information, please visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Rob Portman

U.S. Senator

And sherrod brown:

Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:52 PM

Subject: Thank you for contacting my office

Thank you for sending me your comments. Listening to the views of the people I represent in the U.S. Senate is a critical part of my job. I do my best to provide every Ohioan with a prompt response. If you have an urgent matter, please feel free to call any of my offices in Ohio or Washington, DC. If you have not done so already, please visit my Senate website (http://brown.senate.gov) for comprehensive information about my work in the Senate, as well as constituent services that my office provides and how to get connected with federal programs. Or, you may be interested in receiving my e-Newsletters to stay connected with what's happening in Congress of importance to Ohio. Sign up for regular updates on the work I am doing in the Senate, and please select a few issues to get newsletter updates on specific topics as subjects arise. Sign-up here: http://brown.senate.gov/newsletter/landing

A few days later brown sent another response to my letter. This is it:

Dear Mr. XXXXX:

Thank you for getting in touch with me about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Since 2006, members of the United Nations have been negotiating a treaty to combat the illicit international trade of arms. The treaty would establish global standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional weapons — ranging from tanks, fighter jets, small arms, and ammunition — to prevent them from fueling conflicts or falling into the hands of terrorists, warlords, and international crime syndicates.

I have heard from many Ohioans who are concerned that an ATT could infringe upon their Second Amendment rights. The ATT is not intended to devise a global gun ban or deny law-abiding U.S. citizens their right to bear arms. The United States has made it clear throughout negotiations that any potential ATT must respect the sovereign rights of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their own borders. The Supreme Court has also ruled that no treaty may supersede the powers set forth by our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

I fully support the Second Amendment right to bear arms and will continue to protect this fundamental right. Should the ATT come before the Senate for ratification, I will be sure to keep your views in mind, and I will not support any treaty that undermines the Second Amendment.

Thank you again for contacting me.

#yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 .yiv673708685par_172E5F3AE5CDA92085257ABC0078EEFC_3 {font-family:sans-serif;color:black;font-size:10pt;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;}#yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685 #yiv673708685

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

Stay connected with what's happening in Congress. Sign up here for regular updates on the issues you care about the most: http://brown.senate.gov/newsletter/landing

</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>

[2fat2fly]

Here's one of many newspaper articles/editorials on the treaty:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/gun-ban-back-on-obamas-agenda/

Here's the body of the article/editorial:

That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement. Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.

The administration line is that the treaty applies only to firearms exports and poses no threat to domestic gun owners. “We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” an administration official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”

It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment. Treaty backers also want to insert provisions forcing ratifying states to promote a variety of fashionable left-wing causes including “sustainable development,” even though they have nothing to do with the arms trade.

Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.

A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. With the election out of the way, the White House can move swiftly to get the treaty through the U.N. General Assembly and up to the Senate by the summer of 2013. Elections have consequences.

The Washington Times

Read more: EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama's agenda - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/gun-ban-back-on-obamas-agenda/#ixzz2DihrmQYV

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Disclaimer]

I want to see the letter you wrote...

[kawi kid]

I applaud you for even contacting them. They say its only like 3% of the population ever contact one of their government officials.

[magley64]

I applaud you for even contacting them. They say its only like 3% of the population ever contact one of their government officials.

I once contacted Capri Cafaro regarding the bill she sponsored to stop unaided visual estimation of speed citations...

I also contacted Kasey Kozlowski regarding the same issue...

the bill died without being voted on, but hopefully one of them will put forth another.

[Scruit]

I still don't understand how anyone can think an international arms trade treaty would result in a gun ban in the US.

Sure, the scaremongers can put forth theories about activist judges, but those activist judges can rule against guns already, so nothing is different.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Someone needs to write them asking for them to support the treaty. Curious what their response would be.

[Disclaimer]

I still don't understand how anyone can think an international arms trade treaty would result in a gun ban in the US.

Which is why I want to see the letters he wrote...

[Pokey]

Rep!