Most nations lack a controlled system of distribution and access of ammunition, leading to the misuse of these weapons. Given that the United Nations has made it its mission to safeguard the lives of people across the globe, they are tasked with ensuring that there are controls in place to regulate the usage of arms. Towards the end of 2014, the UN formulated the Arms Trade Treaty that was meant to regulate the trade of ammunition. The objective of this treaty was to ensure the lives of people were safe and that there was transparency in the usage of arms thus extending the agenda of global peace. One hundred and thirty-five nations have signed the treaty. Out of these only ninety-four have ratified it while the remaining forty-one is yet to approve it. There has been debate revolving around the effects of the Arms Trade Treaty to the Second Amendment and other gun laws ( Erickson, 2015), as will be discussed in this paper.
According to Bromley, Cooper, & Holtom (2012), lack of control measures on ammunition has adverse effects, especially to humanitarian organizations such as the UN and the common civilian . The major consequence is a setback on operations. For instance, people offering food aid to the needy or those trying to protect a certain group of civilians are often met with hostile groups who have arms. For this reason, it is highly important to have a rule such as the Arms Trade Treaty in place. This treaty ensures that the trade of arms is regulated, keeping track of where the arms are taken. Those authorized to handle ammunition will be the only ones with access to them. However, some states were concerned about how this will affect their trade and other domestic laws on ammunition that are already in place.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The UN made a clarification that the ATT would not affect any domestic laws of a state and would only be observed in international trade of arms. What the ATT is meant to do is monitor the trade of arms. The objective is to ensure arms don’t end up in the wrong places and cause harm to human rights. Thus there would be a limitation of arms going to certain places like Syria. Other human rights organizations such as amnesty claim that the exclusion of domestic laws on arms acts as a loophole to the entire treaty. For instance, the guns used for hunting are the same guns used by the military. Therefore, such organizations advocate for the inclusion of civilian guns in the ATT. Without doing so, Amnesty International claims that the treaty would be too weak. Thus, this has become an issue of concern, especially since it touches on the second amendment right of the United States ( Bromley et al ., 2012) .
Under the second amendment right, civilians are permitted to keep and bear arms as long as they have been authorized to under the legal processes, so says Lund, & Winkler, (2015). This right was adopted from the English Bill of rights that was meant to extend the nature of self-defense and freedom from oppression by the civilians. When the amendment was first adopted, it was believed that the state used the army to oppress the civilians. Therefore, there was a need to have a control system that ensured even the civilians and state militia had access to weapons for their protection. However, over time, the free circulation of firearms has proved to be a menace in itself. It has reached a point whereby it becomes difficult to trace the movement of ammunition within the states ( Lund, & Winkler, 2015).
One of the counties that have signed and ratified the ATT is America, which raises concern about the effect of the 2 nd amendment and gun ownership. Notably, the Obama regime as considered to be the most hostile when it comes to civilian gun ownership. After the implementation of the ATT, the civilians fear that the anti-gun activists will not care about self-defense but will use the treaty as a base argument to relieve people from the right to bear and keep arms. The groups have now found a leeway to advance their motives against private ownership of ammunition. Drawing from the ATT, it is claimed that private ownership of guns should fall under the regulation of trade of arms. Given that the treaty is still being worked on to be made stronger, there is a high probability that with time, private ownership will also be included in the treaty requirements ( Erickson, 2015) .
For many years, the second amendment has undergone the processes of modification to ensure that the common man can access firearms. There has also been a debate on the precise meaning of the clause well-regulated militia that is found in the amendment ( Lund, & Winkler, 2015). Some argue that the clause does not extend to private ownership and that only well-organized groups are allowed to own guns and other firearms. Despite these arguments, one thing is clear. The second amendment allows for the free flow of ammunition within the state. The Supreme Court rules that the rights have been reserved for the individuals and that the local and state government’s powers are limited in this case.
The ruling by the Supreme Court makes it difficult to fully question the agendas of people in pursuit of firearms. Thus, more often than not, the guns find themselves in the hands of the wrong people. Of interest is the fact that democrats and republicans are using the ATT as a way of extending their political feuds. The Democrats argue that the treaty poses no threat to the second amendment. However, the contrary may appear to be true. From the media, it is evident that people are using arms for the wrong reasons ( Bromley et al ., 2012). Drug cartels are among the frequent users of ammunition especially to oppress the common man. The wars that happen within boarder lines are a perfect example of how unregulated use of firearms can pose a danger to an entire state. In addition, the lack of serious questioning of the use of guns sold to civilians also poses a threat to firearms being used to violate human rights.
In as much as the second amendment is meant to help civilians protect themselves, it poses a threat to misuse of firearms. The entire mission of the UN ATT is to ensure human rights are protected and that no one uses firearms for ill motives. Therefore, the regulation of the import and export of guns and other firearms by the ATT both internationally and locally serves as a concrete measure to ensure people are protected. The advantage if that it does not prohibit the usage or ownership of arms. Rather, it only monitors these processes. As a result, it has a good effect on the second amendment act ( Bromley et al ., 2012) .
References
Bromley, M., Cooper, N., & Holtom, P. (2012). The UN Arms Trade Treaty: arms export controls, the human security agenda and the lessons of history. International Affairs , 88 (5), 1029-1048.
Erickson, J. L. (2015). Saint or sinner? Human Rights and the US support for the arms trade treaty. Political Science Quarterly , 130 (3), 449-475.
Lund, N., & Winkler, A. (2015). The Second Amendment . Retrieved from https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/LS1523.pdf
