President Barack Hussein Obama may be about to make the United States of America subservient to the United Nations.

The following is taken directly from un.org:

Many areas of world trade are covered by regulations that bind countries into agreed conduct. At present, there is no global set of rules governing the trade in conventional weapons. An eclectic set of national and regional control measures and a few global instruments on arms transfers exist, but the absence of a global framework regulating the international trade in all conventional arms has obscured transparency, comparability and accountability.

Governments remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They take 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.

Concerned by the misuse of weaponry around the world, civil society organizations have successfully mobilized governments and parliamentarians to call for the global regulation of the conventional arms trade. Countries have discussed the matter within the UN since 2006 and are set to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012.

The Washington Times reports that

The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”

Arms Trade Treaty backers argue that because the treaty will only regulate international trade, it poses no threat to individual gun rights. That propaganda aside, defenders of the Second Amendment are right to be suspicious. The recent Obamacare debate over the Constitution’s Commerce Clause highlighted that goods and services need not actually cross state lines to be considered “interstate.” Successive Supreme Court rulings have extended the term to any commerce that even indirectly affects interstate markets – which in practice means all commerce. A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that any weapon made with foreign components – or that might some day be exported, or that affects the overall arms market – could be said to be part of “international” trade.

Per mrctv.com, a former adviser to President Clinton has weighed in:

Dick Morris, political author and commentator, warns of a threat to the Second Amendment Right to bear arms.

Morris cautions that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “On July 27… are going to sign a treaty in New York City which will obligate the United States to participate in a global regime of gun control.”

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a proposal by the United Nations to address the lack of global standards for the international arms trade. Morris concedes that “the theoretical objective of the ATT is to regulate the arms trade,” but bills this claim as “ridiculous because most of the arms trade is done by the governments and this [treaty] does nothing to regulate government arms trafficking.”

Morris claims “the real purpose of this [treaty] is that it will set up an international agency that will be in charge of controlling the flow of arms throughout the world…It really will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies within their own countries to facilitate regulation of flows across borders.”

Furthermore, Morris asserts that “if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, it assumes parody with the second amendment…because the supremacy clause of the constitution says treaties are the law of the land.”

Morris concludes that “for those of us who value the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, this is absolutely pivotal.”

The United States gave their official statement at the third day of the Arms Trade Treaty Conference yesterday, per heritage.org:

…And then there was the U.S. statement, made by Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman. As in July 2011, the U.S. spoke on behalf of the Permanent Five (P5) Members of the Security Council. The statement was banal but obviously important.

The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT.

Finally, the ATT should not enter into force until a reasonable number—Countryman suggested 65—states had ratified it, and he “expects” this number to include the main arms trading states.

Little if any of this is shocking—most surprising was the U.S. support for U.N. propaganda, i.e. activities to “promote the value” of the ATT—but a few points are worth making.

First, Countryman did not mention including small arms, light weapons, or ammunition in the ATT. Second, he made no reference at all to domestic constitutional protections or the need for the ATT to respect hunters and sport shooters and the right of personal self-defense. Finally, he emphasized the need for the national definition of the goods and services covered by the ATT.

In short, the U.S. statement was pure lowest common denominator, which is not surprising: In the context of the ATT, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China in fact agree on very little. The U.S. strategy, thus, continues to be fairly simple: to run interference for the autocracies and to try to secure an ATT that the U.S., Russia, and China can sign on to (which will be an ATT that is very general) in the hope that this will satisfy the broader demand for a treaty.

And that leads to the real conflict in the U.S. position: An ATT that is based on sovereignty cannot at the same time be one that is based on “common international standards” if those standards are in practice defined by the ever-evolving sentiments of the “international community” and tightened regularly by the review conferences that will be found necessary by the unsatisfied majority at this conference.

The problem is…we have a President of the United States of America who believes more in the rights of the “international community” than he does in the sovereignty of his own country.