What exactly does the treaty do? It attempts to make it harder for groups that perform human rights abuses, child soldiers, and terrorists to get weapons. This treaty would have no impact on legal and law abiding US citizens on how they get their guns and ammo. It will make it harder for arms dealers to make blood money selling weapons to third world dictators and other groups.
Retired Major General Roger R. Blunt points out the Arm Trade Treaty (ATT) is no threat to the US.
We have international agreements regulating the cross-border sale of iPods and bananas, but we have no global treaties governing the international sale of weapons. The ATT would fix that by becoming the first-ever treaty governing the international trade of conventional weapons.
The United States has some of the strictest regulations when it comes to the import and export of tanks, attack helicopters, guns, grenades and ammunition, but many countries — especially in the developing world — have little to no regulation. This patchwork system of national laws rewards bad actors by making it easy for them to exploit loopholes. These loopholes are used to arm the terrorists and insurgents killing our troops and warlords who are responsible for untold suffering throughout the developing world.
Since the United States is already widely acknowledged as the gold standard in arms trade regulations, this treaty would have little to no impact on international weapons transfers by the United States and no impact on Second Amendment freedoms. It would also in no way establish a supranational regulatory agency that could in any way violate U.S. sovereignty. What it would do is maintain our role as a world leader by requiring other countries to meet the example we have already set.
The Christian Science Monitor's op-ed clearly explains that this will not actually hurt the United States since we already have strict laws of whom US companies can trade and will do nothing about domestic sales.
Allegations made by some here in the United States that the treaty infringes on the domestic rights of US citizens to legally possess firearms amount to irresponsible demagoguery. The treaty only governs international arms transfers and fully respects the sovereign rights of nations to regulate gun ownership as they see fit. No one, except maybe illicit arms dealers and human rights abusers, should oppose common-sense international law regulating the arms trade.So if Mr. Weiland is concerned about his answer, I would say, I support fighting terrorism and protecting Americans. I would support the treaty since it doesn't hurt our rights and makes the world safer.