Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


World community is largely unfriendly to concept of gun ownership

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,

It has been very confusing to me when readers of this paper mention the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty or the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. After much research, I have found that the exact title is ATT or U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships.

According to the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA): "The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools."

UNODA claims the treaty will not interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in its member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm the legitimate right to self-defense; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place all weapons—including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment.
Anti-gun treaty proponents claim the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's not true. For example, the treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the "end user" of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an "end user" and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. 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.
If international registration is required, then foreign governments would have knowledge of every (foreign) gun owner in the country, and have the right to regulate arms imports and exports, conceivably allowing for the barring of import or export of certain classes of firearms to and from the U.S.
How does this violate our constitutional rights? Article VI of our Constitution states that all treaties made, along with the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.
From what I have read, I don't think the treaty steps on our Second Amendment rights YET. But what happens is the baby steps the U.N. is taking to eventually have one World Government, and having control of our guns is a step in that direction. The international community is largely unfriendly to the American concept that firearms ownership is a right and that government is not only allowed to permit such a right, it is duty-bound to uphold and protect that right.
Jeanne Shaheen recently voted to ratify our part of the treaty. If you think she shouldn't have, please let her know.

Peggy Graham