Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

Wong: Reject UN Arms Trade Treaty

Featured in General News
Wong: Reject UN Arms Trade Treaty
United Nations War on Guns Monument

Calling a proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty a "potential threat to our Constitutional rights," American Legion National Commander Fang A. Wong said the White House and the U.S. Senate should reject any proposal that usurps the sovereignty of the American people.

"Since the American Revolution, America’s veterans have defended the U.S. Constitution," Wong said. "Many died. Many bled. The American Legion has always opposed usurpation of U.S. sovereignty by an international body. We opposed the International Criminal Court on the grounds that it left U.S. service members vulnerable to charges of alleged war crimes. We opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) because it created a precedent for future share-the-wealth schemes. We opposed U.S. troops being placed under the command of U.N. forces. And any Arms Trade Treaty that not only threatens the Second Amendment rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, but also represents the growing movement to place an international entity above our governing and founding document will be opposed. While we understand the effort to combat the international trade in arms that make possible human rights violations and genocide, the drafters should be cognizant that the United States views its Constitution, including the Second Amendment, as preeminent."

The American Legion has been a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution since the organization was founded in 1919. It has repeatedly passed national resolutions reaffirming support for the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights. At its 1996 national convention in Salt Lake City, American Legion delegates unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming that "the efforts of government should be directed to the enforcement of existing laws rather than banning the possession of firearms by the millions of our citizens who desire them for traditionally legitimate purposes…"

More in General News


John La Rochelle

July 13, 2012 - 1:37pm

From July 2 - July 27 all countries of the world are coming together in New York to formulate an international coventional arms TRADE treaty. Since the convention is still in session, the final draft and its contents are mere speculation. This is from the UN: "Irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons can destabilize security in a region, enable the violation of Security Council arms embargoes and contribute to human rights abuses. Governments remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They make decisions on arms transfers across international borders. That is why governments are expected to show responsibility in their decisions regarding arms transfers. This means that before approving international transfers (e.g., exports) of weapons, governments should assess the risk that such transfers would exacerbate conflict or be used to commit grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law." It has nothing to do with private firearms ownwership anywhere.


July 12, 2012 - 11:57pm

You, sir, are the problem. Apparently you are a Constitutional Lawyer? If you read the proposed treaty or research what is in it I think you will find that the U.N. would be the determining body. The U.S. has A vote among many other countries who routinely vote against the U.S. What makes you think the person appointed (notice not elected) to represent the U.S. at the UN would not join the many totalitarian regimes in the UN who don't allow private gun ownership of their citizens? It's your kind of thinking that has allowed us to get as close as we are to losing more of our rights. Don't ever believe it can't happen here. Ask the Brits, or the Australians or some of the other countries who are now wishing they had their individual rights back. Once gone it is very unlikely they will ever be reinstated. At very least it would require an insurrection to accomplish that. Remember, many in our own Government have openly stated they want a world governing body.

John La Rochelle

July 12, 2012 - 4:29pm

An international arms trade treaty does not surrender any American rights to the UN, and certainly is not spitting in the faces of ALL those that have served and made the ultimate sacrifice. The U.S. has veto powers in the UN Security Council, along with China,France, Russia, and the Unted Kingdom. The UN will never be able to overide any sovereign nations laws as long as that nation's laws abide with what is SPECIFICALY detailed in the treaty. Speculation curtailed by researching Civics 101.


July 12, 2012 - 3:53pm

Treaties cannot override the US constitution--but they can take precedence over any and all state constitutions. As to the arms treaty, it's what it can do and still be in compliance with the 2nd amendment that is oh so dangerous. As example; national gun registration could be required by the UN. That's not prohibited by the 2nd. Banning semiautomatic small arms could be required by the UN. That also is not prohibited by the 2nd. The UN could ban rifles and shotguns holding more than 3 rounds. That also is not prohibited by the 2nd. There's many things that the UN can and would demand if the treaty is approved..things that would be very detrimental to our rights. So, NO!, no small arms or any other arms treaty--thank you.


July 11, 2012 - 6:54pm

It isn't about what is or is not in the proposal, it is about the surrender of American Rights to a third party (the UN) as if that third party had the right to decide what this country may or may not do now or in the future. I'm not interested in surrendering American Rights to the decisions of the United Nations. To do so would be spitting in the face of every vet that gave his life in the defense of our liberties.

John La Rochelle

July 10, 2012 - 2:36pm

No treaty (agreement between sovereign nations) can ever threaten change to the Consititution (fundamental US law). Only amendments ratified by all fifty states can do so, and only federal courts can interpret it, the Supreme Court being the ultimate interpreter.

Add new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think