Your attention is invited!

The Supremacy Clause and the U.N. Small Arms Treaty

A Hidden Danger

©Stuart Klearman 30 January 2022

As good a job as the Founders did in writing our Constitution, the competing view points, compromises, and end result left us with some shortcomings (such as Natural Born Citizen not being defined) and vulnerabilities, as will be seen below. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Cl 2, says this:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In a 2011 article in Forbes Magazine, contributor Larry Bell stated “Under the guise of a proposed global "Small Arms Treaty" premised to fight "terrorism", "insurgency" and "international crime syndicates" you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted - our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.”  Bell continued that “it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

• Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
• Confiscate and destroy all "unauthorized" civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
• Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull - one single "bang" manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
• Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.” 

This next commentary is sure to stir up controversy, but I stand by my assessments. The U.N., however well-intended at its founding, seems to have evolved mainly into a globalist, self-serving bureaucracy. When you have member states serving on the U.N. Human Rights Council such as Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, or Pakistan, you have a problem. Human rights do not exist in dictatorship states. Allowing a globalist, corrupt, one-world government organization to dictate and control the internal workings of any state, is fundamentally dangerous. The U.N. can claim the Small Arms Treaty is about making the world a safer place all it wants to. Protecting the sovereignty of each nation is of the utmost importance. Of those six nations mentioned above, what do they have in common? Two are communist. One is a former communist state. One is a socialist state bordering on communism. Iran and Pakistan are brutal dictatorships in their own rights with Iran of course, being one of the top sponsors of terrorism. What else do these nations have in common? They have extremely restricted private gun ownership, or outright bans. However, only three countries provide Constitutional protection (the right to keep and bear arms): the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico. The latter two blatantly disregard those protections, and the United States barely honors the Second Amendment.

So what about those concerns about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty by Larry Bell, above? The language of the Treaty seems vague, opening the door to global bans or severe restrictions on civilian gun ownership, and erosion of national sovereignty – effectively making all nations subservient to the U.N. Remember, governments hate competition and do not like a civilian population being able to defend itself against tyranny and oppression.

The Supremacy Clause does not seem to clarify whether the Constitution would remain superior to any treaties, such as the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Without doubt that would be something argued by constitutional scholars and constitutional lawyers, but it is something to consider and be wary of. There is a body of case law regarding this.

A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the Supremacy Clause, both statutes and treaties “are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.  (Justia: Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power n.d.)

The above reference details some of the cases and case law pertaining to this topic. Of course, appellate courts including the Supreme Court, contradict each other and sometimes reverse their own decisions in later cases. What this really leaves us with, is the possibility the U.N. Treaty could be held by the Supreme Court to take precedence over the Constitution and Second Amendment. In other words, the U.N. Treaty could strip away our sovereignty as a nation and our rights as citizens.

Whether this would, or could actually occur is a matter of constitutional debate. Clearly though, it is a gamble not worth taking. Read the Treaty and decide for yourself.

Of note, years ago I was told that part of the U.N. Small Arms treaty included a provision to have police officers turn in their issued duty weapons at the station when going off duty. I have not found that in the above text of the Treaty. However, I bring up this “rumor” because it has a critical underlying point, if it is true or later becomes true. I had the pleasure of visiting the former Yugoslavia (Dubrovnik) on a Naval deployment in 1989/1990. Shortly thereafter, civil war broke out. A dictator named Slobodan Milosevic came to power. Sparing the minute details, there was an incident in 2000 called the “Bulldozer Revolution” because protestors brought bulldozers to push aside blockades or barricades. In the end, many of the police sided with the protestors against the Milosevic government.

. This has long stuck with me. Most, perhaps nearly all, police in America are patriotic and try to do what is right, even in a world of “conflicting orders or mandates.” If push ever came to shove, in spite of the demonization of America’s police over the past several years, I believe the vast majority would stand with the people and Constitution. Of course, that faith is being tested presently as I see law enforcement enforcing unconstitutional executive mandates regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. In any case, do not think for one minute other nations, and international groups like the U.N. did not take notice of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. So, if it is true, or came to be true, that under the U.N. Treaty police did have to secure their issued weapons in the station when going off duty, it would make sense from a dictatorship point of view. Disarm the police off duty. Prevent them from accessing their issued arms. Certainly, we have seen something like this before – as in the days prior to the American Revolution. Recall that King George III made efforts to disarm the civilian population and by extension, the militia. Thus, at a minimum, however speculative this may be, it should serve as a harbinger – a call to vigilance to ensure that America surrenders absolutely no sovereignty to the U.N.

Make no mistake, the U.N. considers loss of liberty to be justified in the name of “security” or “public welfare.” In both of my books on the Second Amendment, Infringed: Assault on our Natural & Constitutional Rights, and my latest, Kings & Pawns: Sinister Cornerstones of Gun Control, I illustrate that the two ages-old cries of the oppressor are “public welfare” and “national security.” 

The moral of this story is that we are vulnerable to the U.N. It is not clear in the Constitution whether a treaty or the Constitution would prevail. Thus, if the president were to suddenly sign the treaty, the Second Amendment could be de facto destroyed. History shows quite clearly when citizens are disarmed, dictatorships, oppression, and genocide follow. America must remain resolute and insist that we not sign onto this treaty. If the Second Amendment is destroyed, rest assured, other rights will likely follow…quickly.

The full U.N. Small Arms Treaty may be found here:

https://thearmstradetreaty.org/treaty-text.html