UN Small Arms Treaty

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:33 pm

Ok, I'm not trying to get political here, but has anyone checked into the implications of the UN Small Arms Treaty that President Obama is rumored to be going to sign in regards to warbirds? The allegedly leaked text seems to indicate that "combat aircraft" will be also regulated under this treaty.

Ryan

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:42 pm

Where have you seen a draft text?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:05 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:

Where have you seen a draft text?

This was forwarded to me... Note that I said "alleged" because I'm not sure if it's a trustworthy source or not.

http://iapcar.org/?p=970

Ryan

oscardeuce · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am **Posts:** 1021

My read is this requires a national/international registry of firearms. At the very least a huge privacy issue, at the worst a list of which doors to knock down first. I have not seen any impact on aircraft, but I have not researched that aspect. Our aviator privileges are not Constitutionally protected, so to me the fight is to protect the Constitution first, then protect the privileges we enjoy.
I read 56 Senators wrote the President in opposition to the Treaty, they would need 2/3 to ratify unless the administration tries a type of " recess" passage.

The Obama Administration continues to ban the importation of WWII/Korean war rifles like the M-1 Garand. These are historical firearms, much like our vintage warbirds.

They have made it much more difficult to get some firearms. NFA machine gun transfers are at best a 6 month process for individuals. Some would say " why own a machine gun? " the same could be said of a warbird. We are not as free as we once were, and it seems our privacy and liberty is at more risk every day.

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:51 pm

Ryan, IF that text has any validity it wouldn't cover warbirds unless they were to be exported/imported as a weapon themselves (in most cases currently the issue has been on any weapons - guns etc) rather than the aircraft as a weapon carrier, or a weapon system part.

I remain unconvinced that in our area of interest it would require any modification to existing international ex-military aircraft trades. With reference to the US, we can think of the issue of exporting a Spitfire, and the issues over the Skyraider where guns in the crate and inadequate paperwork was the issue - not the aircraft.

I'm certainly not able to authoritatively interpret international legal speak, but there's clearly a good deal of disinformation being pushed by most participants of all perspectives in the matter.

Oscar, a warbird should be regarded as equivalent (at worst) to a deactivated machinegun - an important distinction.

Anyone advocating that private individuals should be able to operate fully-armed and capable aircraft originally intended for national operation and ownership will have a task on their hands, and not my support either. No country legislates for that now.

In short, we don't know (I certainly don't) but I'm not concerned from a warbird perspective.

Just a few thoughts,

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:28 pm

JDK wrote:

Ryan, IF that text has any validity it wouldn't cover warbirds unless they were to be exported/imported as a weapon themselves (in most cases currently the issue has been on any weapons - guns etc) rather than the aircraft as a weapon carrier, or a weapon system part.

I remain unconvinced that in our area of interest it would require any modification to existing international ex-military aircraft trades. With reference to the US, we can think of the issue of exporting a Spitfire, and the issues over the Skyraider where guns in the crate and inadequate paperwork was the issue - not the aircraft.

I'm certainly not able to authoritatively interpret international legal speak, but there's clearly a good deal of disinformation being pushed by most participants of all perspectives in the matter.

Oscar, a warbird should be regarded as equivalent (at worst) to a deactivated machinegun - an important distinction.

Anyone advocating that private individuals should be able to operate fully-armed and capable aircraft originally intended for national operation and ownership will have a task on their hands, and not my support either. No country legislates for that now.

In short, we don't know (I certainly don't) but I'm not concerned from a warbird perspective.

Just a few thoughts,

Precedent-wise, we've already seen some sort of action on this kind of thing even without such a treaty, haven't we with the Skyraider from France and the US ATF or whomever it was that held up the aircraft?

On a side note, it would be interesting to see what kind of history there is with private individuals and fully-armed and capable aircraft. I doubt it would be seriously damaging.

Ryan

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:34 pm

RyanShort1 wrote:

Precedent-wise, we've already seen some sort of action on this kind of thing even without such a treaty, haven't we with the Skyraider from France and the US ATF or whomever it was that held up the aircraft?

Um, that's what I mentioned...

Quote:

On a side note, it would be interesting to see what kind of history there is with private individuals and fully-armed and capable aircraft. I doubt it would be seriously damaging.

'Interesting' it would be. However to a) avoid a pointless divisive debate and b) to stick to the point, let's just note there's no legal precedent for fully armed warbirds (rather than for organisations with government sanctioned legal requirements for armed aircraft) and that'll be where it'll remain.

Let's also just try to avoid any hysteria over the question on WIX too.

Regards,

oscardeuce · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am **Posts:** 1021

JDK,
I would disagree with your example. Our museum was able to fly UH-1s, but our AH-1 was considered a "tactical" aircraft. Even with no arms in board the gov't required it to be rendered inoperable .
It is how the gov't defines things. The common legal definition of assault rifle is much different from the military definition. Also, in the ATF/ NFA world once a machine gun, always a machine gun. Even if you rebuilt the pile of parts into a semi auto firearm, unless an approval letter from them follows your design, you are headed to club fed. We can restore a pile of parts into a Corsair, but other than the usual regs to follow it is just another general aviation type aircraft. There is no "once a fighter always a fighter" attitude.
Had I the $$$ I could buy the appropriate mini gun for the O2-A. Now whether the FAA would let my fly is a different story. Most of the warbirds still have the capacity to carry arms ( as do any aircraft). Would a Cessna 172 with armed passenger not now be a tactical aircraft?
It is how the govt defines things. The tomato is a fruit, but the gov't says it is a vegetable.....
I would also put this in the "first they came for the Jews" category, it may not affect warbirds today, but what about tomorrow?

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:04 am

I'll take both sides here.
First I'll agree with JDK, let's not panic. There is a lot of dis-information out there when it comes to "hot button" issues.
But...and there is always a but...
I'd also be very weary. Bureaucrats can certainly read things into laws that aren't originally there.
And if anyone expects anyone at the UN, US Senate or White House to wonder how it this MIGHT be applied to warbirds and worry about us (or military vehicle collectors or gun collectors)..well I'd politely suggest your're being very optimistic.

Remember several years ago in the UK and other places that called themselves "Nuclear Free Zones"...IIRC (and I might be wrong on this) didn't that have some affect on military aircraft displays at civil airports....some were banned because they were "nuclear CAPABLE"?
In the same vein...
I could see potential probelms if someone decides old warbirds or even Hueys, O-2s and T-28s are "Tactically capable"...in other words, at some time in the past the type was armed and therefore, could be again.
Read the document, but keep your powder dry. Or as our Middle-East friends allegedly say..."Trust in Allah, but tie your camel".

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:17 am

I think John's post is very acute.

I'd just add that most of the western world has (from firsthand experience) vibrant modern warbird scenes, well supported, legislated for and protected, and simultaneously completely different gun controls to the US.

I don't see a yet-to-be agreed top level international arms control treaty is something really to worry about from a warbird perspective.

If it were, those economies significantly dependant on arms exports are going to have much bigger worries above warbird ops.

Not sure much else can be realistically debated here, without it going bad.

Regards,

paul smith · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:14 pm

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you collect firearms or own firearms, or even care about the firearms ownership issue. What matters is that the President is attempting to subjegate the Constitution of the United States to an appointed international political body. Once that precedent is set, you can kiss off the other provisions of the Constitution. They will be completely vulnerable to the whim of whatever political influence is currently in power in the world.

It is true that the treaty must be ratified by the Senate before we are bound by the UN treaty enforcement commission. Currently, it appears that there are enough votes to overturn the President's signature on the document. HOWEVER, there is no time limit on when the treaty must be submitted to the Senate for a vote. That means that the President or his successor can wait until there is a more favorable majority in the Senate before bringing it up for a vote. Once he signs the document, he and his State Department control it.

That is the big issue here. Do we still have an American Constitution, or do we allow it to be edited and rewritten by the UN?

muddyboots · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:08 pm

Paul, as long as this:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

is happening, he is perfectly within his rights as well as constitutionally bound to make treaties such as this. It appears that so far he has done nothing unconstitutional despite your claims.

That it happens to be with the UN doesn't make it any less a treaty, they are after all a collection of nations. He has the same powers and limitations in regards to the UN as any other president in history and is doing nothing that every other president has not done since its inception. That you do not like it isn't up for discussion, unless you suggest we take his constitutionally vested powers away from this president in particular because you happen to be rabidly conservative and he isn't. In that case I suggest you move elsewhere. Maybe Afghanistan. It's nice there in the summer. Having been there, I suggest you drink plenty of water and not discuss your political views with the natives there either. They're liable to take exception and their constitution is 1500 years older than ours and much less kind about the views of dissenters.

Meantime can we please lock this crap thread? I thought political talk wasn't allowed. I am quite sure there was a reason that rule was instituted, as one can see clearly in this thread. Ryan, you of all people know better than to start a thread like this. :roll:

It's a bullet magnet.

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:40 pm

paul smith wrote:

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you collect firearms or own firearms, or even care about the firearms ownership issue.
...

As NONE of your post has anything about warbirds, I'd politely suggest you are missing the point here.

This is NOT a gun forum, nor a US governance forum. It's also an international forum, folks, and while I respect our American members right to have passionate views on the running of their country or the world, this is NOT the place for those discussions, any more that the Aussie members should bang-on about the Murray Darling System and world water rights - thanks.

Time to lock the thread, IMHO.

paul smith · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:59 pm

This "Crap Thread" was about a question whether the government could limit our right to own certain types of property, namely warbirds. Would you give it that power? You would support subverting the Bill of Rights which was written to limit the power of the government to do just that, then perhaps you would rather shut down not only this thread, but this entire site.

I wasn't in Afghanistan. I was in Iran, though. And Bahrain, Turkey and many other countries in my 13 years of service. I prefer the US- with it's Constitution intact.

And to our Aussie friends, this subject is perfectly material to our passion for military aircraft. Goverments and their courts rely heavily upon precedents. Since you have allowed your government to take away much of your freedoms to own firearms, what is to stop them from simply adding warbirds to the list?

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:22 pm

In answer to the question 'what is to stop the Australian Government from banning warbirds?' exactly the same thing as in most of the western world. Proven reasonable behaviour, organisations like Australian Warbirds who work with our civil aviation authority (CASA) in managing the operation of warbirds, and good communication and reporting about warbirds.

Not regarding or promoting them as weapons is something we've found effective, here. Others may do different on their patch, of course.

If you can't avoid dragging tedious US political and gun debates into this forum as well as all the other places we (the rest of the world) have to put up with it (because we have no say, just the fallout) then count on a further decline in the international membership. We'll look after our own patch too, and without discussion here, thanks.

I've no interest in a NRA vs gun control lobby here on WIX. There's places for that crap, and this isn't it. Ranting on about US governance and guns here will be the shortest route to getting to shutting down the site, long before we need worry about government control doing so.

I'm done, and flagging the thread for closure.

Warbird Information Exchange

UN Small Arms Treaty

Who is online