If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S” (Heritage, 2013).
The ATT also imposes intrusive record keeping and reporting provisions by requiring nations to “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory” and notes that these records may contain information about the type of arms transferred and their “end users “ (UN ATT, 2013). This information must be reported to the treaty’s international Implementation Support Unit
Treaty Impacts to United States Homeland Security
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.N. ATT in September 2013, while a large bipartisan majority of the Senate stated its opposition to ratifying the treaty. As our Congress and the American people delve further into this treaty language it becomes more obvious this treaty is a threat to our sovereignty. Our Congress has become increasingly assertive in their claims and their criticism of the United States and its support for this treaty. The wisdom of the Senate’s opposition to the treaty has already been amply demonstrated and I believe we will see both the Senate and the Household hearings on this treaty (Heritage, 2013).
On October 15, Jerry Moran (R–KS) and Joe Manchin (D–WV) released a letter signed by 50 Senators pledging to oppose the ATT; while a similar letter was signed by 181 Representatives, led by Representatives Mike Kelly (R–PA) and Collin Peterson (D–MN) (Heritage,2013). On October 21, four Democratic Senators, led by Jon Tester (D–MT), released a similar letter (Heritage, 2013). In June, one treaty supporter stated that the ATT was “absolutely toxic” on Capitol Hill (Heritage, 2013). In October, the opposition to the ATT reached lethal levels, as an amendment offered by Representative Mike Kelly to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, was signed into law on December 26, 2013. This signed amendment bans the use of funds by the Department of Defense to implement the ATT unless the treaty receives the advice and consent of the Senate and is the subject of implementing legislation.
As ATT proponents collectively demonstrate an open threat to U.S. foreign and domestic policy to criticize the United States (:
▪ On October 3, 2013, Vann Van Diepen, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation in the U.S. State Department, argued that it is incumbent upon treaty signatories to take measures not specifically required by the treaty in order to “help achieve its ideals.” Although, Van Diepen stated this argument did not apply to the U.S., it is clear by the ATT language that the U.S. is obliged to take actions to achieve newly invented ideals that are purportedly implied by the treaty (Heritage, 2013).
▪ On October 18, ATT advocates publicized their pro-treaty assertions through the New York Times, criticizing the U.S. for...