UN and global gun regulations

[LAR-15]

Small Arms Talks Hamstrung
Chris Affolter

As the United Nations prepares to host a review conference on curbing trade in small arms and light weapons, disputes over the extent of such measures and whether they should be legally binding are hampering progress. The disputes have helped block participants from even agreeing on an agenda, raising the possibility of a repeat of a 2001 conference that ended without an agreement on binding measures.

More than 50 countries met at a Jan. 9-21 New York preparatory meeting for the June 26-July 7 UN review conference. At the conclusion of the preparatory meeting, Chairman Sylvester Rowe of Sierra Leone compiled a document of possible policy options for the conference, including consideration of legally binding measures. But the lack of consensus on the document brought the meeting to a close without an agreed agenda.

A number of countries, including the United States, resisted any attempt to discuss legally binding measures and also rebuffed efforts to address limits on civilian ownership, legal trade and manufacture, and transfers to nonstate entities.

These views track those the United States put forward in July 2001 when UN members gathered in New York for the first global conference on the illicit international trade of small arms and light weapons. The 2001 conference was unable to agree on le gally binding measures, instead producing the voluntary Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. This document outlined a series of voluntary measures to stem the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, which range from grenades, pistols, and rifles to machine guns and man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS.

However, in his opening statement to the January gathering, Steven Costner, deputy director for the Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, expressed support for some measures advanced in the intervening years. Along with other foreign diplomats, Costner called for the implementation of a new international instrument, adopted in 2005, for the marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons. In addition, he voiced support for the goals of the British-proposed Transfer Control Initiative, an effort to forge an international consensus on guidelines for the transfer of small arms and light weapons. (See ACT, September 2005.) It is unclear how participants will deal with these two issues at the upcoming conference.

Some U.S. lawmakers are pressing the Bush administration to pursue a new approach at the 2006 conference. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), along with a dozen colleagues, sent a Jan. 12 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to “push for strong, specific arms export criteria in or [that would] supplement” the UN Program of Action in June. Such criteria, the letter volunteers, could include the prevention of arms transfers that could result in human rights abuses or terrorism, violations of international treaties and embargoes, or disruptions to regional peace and security.

Similarly, the European Union has called for the creation of international guidelines for the transfer of small arms and light weapons, supporting, for example, the adoption of a legally binding international instrument on the tracing and marking of small arms and light weapons and ammunition. The December 2005 instrument supported by the United States is not legally binding. European countries are particularly concerned about the detrimental effects of illegal small arms and light weapons transfers to sub-Saharan Africa.

In hopes of preparing a formal agenda in time for the conference, countries are planning informal consultations in the interim. Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, president of the review conference, is leading this dialogue. If the effort is not successful, approving an agenda will be the first order of business at the summer conference.

 

[ArmedBear]

I personally support the large-scale transfer of small arms to the people of subsaharan Africa. There are a lot of innocent men, women and children being slaughtered by their governments and other gangs of murderers.

Any opposition to arming them, and any gun bans by governments, are objectively pro-genocide.

I think that the proliferation of civilian-owned guns in various parts of the world, with very low rates of abuse, demonstrates that the problem with Africa is not the guns people have, but the fact that people want to slaughter each other. Rwanda demonstrated that homemade blades are sufficient to affect genocide. Let the innocent have the only reasonable means to defend their lives from bands of murderers: guns.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

Armed bear +1

There are a lot of innocent men, women and children being slaughtered by their governments and other gangs of murderers.

Which is porbably why the U.N. doesn't want those nasty old guns getting into the hands of those people. It would be one heck of a problem for the UN if the government didn't have a monopoly on force.

 

[azredhawk44]

man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS.

I think the author wrote this article just so he could say "MANPADS".

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

All You Need To Know About The UN And Gun Control...

...is this:

Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause (2):

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,...

All treaties must be made under the authority(power) that we have granted to the government of the United States in the Constitution. The power to infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms has not been granted to the government, and has indeed been denied to it(and ALL branches and levels of our government). Our government does not have the power to enter into any treaty that would infringe upon that right. Don't let anyone in government tell you any different.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

 

[hwp]

Notice which "American" was listed by name as wanting more stringent controls?

Any gun owner that votes Democrat DESERVES to have their guns taken.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A number of countries, including the United States, resisted any attempt to discuss legally binding measures and also rebuffed efforts to address limits on civilian ownership, legal trade and manufacture, and transfers to nonstate entities.

I am sure we would have seen the same results had Kerry won in 2004. After all there is no difference between the Republicrats and the Demicans, right?

Also worth noting that it only takes the Senate and the President to enter into a binding international treaty. It gives me the shakes to think about what a 51-49 Senate and Kerry as President might have done with this conference.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bartholomew,

Fortunately, it takes 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty. That is, of course, if the President and Senate decide to usurp the power not given them in the Constitution and forbidden them in the Second Amendment to infringe our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

True; but 15 votes is a lot closer than I would like to be to some of the proposals made through the UN. Particularly with an executive that can make it worthwhile for those who aren't motivated by principle to flip their vote. I guess I just don't have confidence that there aren't 15 Senators who would be OK with saying "Sure I voted to ratify that UN treaty to save small children from guns; but I also brought home 10 billion dollars in highway money!"

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I too have no confidence in a 15 vote margin, in fact I have no confidence in my government. As soon as I'm not looking or nod off they are sneaking into my comfort zone.

There has been way too much footsy crap going on with the UN for me to kick back and relax. And look how well the U.S. Supreme courts stand up for the Constitution, they gave away property rights through imminent domain.

Now Feinstein is trying to get more controls. Those liberals have their sites on the UN for ultimate control. Just a little bit at a time starting with Africa. We ought to be arming every country down there. Eddy Eagle should be spreading his wings for the sub Sahara.

Yahoos,

Vick

 

[solareclipse]

while i have no love for the UN, please point me where do they say one should not own arms?

they are basically fighting the imports of large quantities of illegal arms into volatile regions usually against agreements and charters....

i've read a lot of UN papers and never have i seen anywhere that it says private ownership is evil. Same for the EU constitution..

 

[LAK]

However, in his opening statement to the January gathering, Steven Costner, deputy director for the Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, expressed support for some measures advanced in the intervening years. Along with other foreign diplomats, Costner called for the implementation of a new international instrument, adopted in 2005, for the marking and tracing of small arms and light weapons. In addition, he voiced support for the goals of the British-proposed Transfer Control Initiative, an effort to forge an international consensus on guidelines for the transfer of small arms and light weapons. (See ACT, September 2005.) It is unclear how participants will deal with these two issues at the upcoming conference.

Watch your gov signing your nation away. One piece at a time.
-------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[AF_INT1N0]

while i have no love for the UN, please point me where do they say one should not own arms?

they are basically fighting the imports of large quantities of illegal arms into volatile regions usually against agreements and charters....

i've read a lot of UN papers and never have i seen anywhere that it says private ownership is evil. Same for the EU constitution..

-solareclipse,

The problem with that is that in the majority of these countries; the weapons that protect the people are illigitimate. In many of these coutries the government is the main purpetrator of mass murder. Ussually when UN forces go in there, it just exasperates the situation, and make it worse than it was.

While the UN doesn't say guns are verboten per se, they don't want them getting into the hands of non UN (see the citizens).


The main problem is that the UN doesn't make charters with small bands of christians, who are being killed off in mass during ethnic cleansing, they make charters with the government that is either actively engaged in the cleansing or turns a blind eye to it.

 

[K-Romulus]

a lot going on at the UN

Here is the "Programme of Action" for the 2006 conference:

http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html

Here is the relevant part for people like "us":

II. Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects

1. We, the States participating in this Conference, bearing in mind the different situations, capacities and priorities of States and regions, undertake the following measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects:

At the national level
. . .

23. To make public national laws, regulations and procedures that impact on the prevention, combating and eradicating of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects and to submit, on a voluntary basis, to relevant regional and international organizations and in accordance with their national practices, information on, inter alia, (a) small arms and light weapons confiscated or destroyed within their jurisdiction; and (b) other relevant information such as illicit trade routes and techniques of acquisition that can contribute to the eradication of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

A common complaint among the international anti-gun-owner crowd is that legal firearms are "diverted" to the illegal market, especially from countries with relatively free firearms laws to gun-ban countries. For instance, there have been many claims that firearms from the US are being sent (illegally) to places like Jamaica, Kosovo, Mexico, etc. This is an international version of the "lax gun laws cause crime in NYC" argument. In response, the UN conference seeks to push "best practices" concerning firearms ownership onto its member countries.

The "best practices" being pushed by groups like International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which is basically the policy wing of the UN conference, are civilian firearms licensing, firearm registration, and some sort of ban on some types of firearms.

Here is what IANSA says about itself:

http://www.iansa.org/about.htm

In July 2001, IANSA was instrumental in raising and unifying the voices of NGOs at the United Nations Small Arms Conference in New York, the first world gathering on small arms and light weapons. We brought governments into serious, meaningful dialogue with the NGO sector over small arms, ensuring that those involved in the preparation of the UN Programme of Action felt the pressure of civil society organisations committed to bringing about real and lasting change. IANSA helped bring 46 participant organisations from gun-affected countries to the preparatory meetings and Conference, as well as coordinating NGO activities and their presentations to the Conference. IANSA is now recognised by the UN as an important global NGO network with valuable expertise to contribute to discussions at all levels.

What's ahead for IANSA?
Joint Action. IANSA will continue to expand and strengthen the network of organisations committed to stopping small arms proliferation. National, regional and sub-regional networks will be established to address their specific concerns. New thematic networks built around key issues, such as public health, women and children will increase international expertise and cooperation in joint efforts for change.

. . .

How is IANSA funded?
IANSA’s work has been supported by funders including the Governments of UK, Belgium, Sweden and Norway, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Compton Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Institute, Samuel Rubin Foundation and Christian Aid.

For a sobering education of where the UN conference would like to go, poke around the IANSA website. These were the people who funded and pushed the failed Brazilian total firearms ban referendum. These guys deemed the last UN conference on small arms as a "failure" because Mike Bolton refused to sign on to their ideas concerning restrictions on civilian firearms ownership, even though most all the attending countries agreed to take steps to help prevent illegal arms smuggling.

Another example of what IANSA is about:

http://www.iansa.org/issues/public_health.htm

Gun violence prevention involves reducing people's exposure to the agent of injury - in this case, their exposure to guns. This means restricting and reducing access to guns, and reducing the lethality of guns (for example by banning the most destructive weapons, such as assault weapons).

Research in Canada and Australia has shown that when controls on gun ownership are increased, the rate of firearm death has gone down.

 

[Maxwell]

First of all I thought the UN was supposed to be a meeting place, not the new world government. For better or worse, they dont have much sway with what goes on inside the borders of a country.
The UN has been unable to stop drugs, bombs, fighters, or even tanks from crossing borders. I fail to see how they can stop weapons without the cooperation of the host country.
Which means it would disarm many more US citizens than it could insurgents.

Even if the UN had that ability, that leaves them the power to decide who is the rightful power in many nations. With so many regions needing regime changes in our (US) view, this kind of agreement is NOT a good idea for us.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

while i have no love for the UN, please point me where do they say one should not own arms?

Do a search here on the original UN Small Arms conference in 2001 or IANSA or Rebecca Peters. This should give you a pretty good idea of what the agenda is and it is much more hostile to the rights of firearms owners than anything advanced by the Democratic party in the past 20 years (and that is saying something).

Peters, a representative of IANSA, is on record saying you should basically own only hunting rifles and shotguns and they should be kept at the police station where you may check them out if you are allowed to use them at that particular moment.

they are basically fighting the imports of large quantities of illegal arms into volatile regions usually against agreements and charters....

That is the pretext; but the largest providers of illegal arms are Russia and China. The United States and Britain have some of the strongest arms export controls of any nation in the world and even IANSA will acknowledge this...yet all of their efforts are aimed where? I don't see any Russian IANSA website, do you?

 

[TheEgg]

A yes, the U.N., making the world safe for genocidal governments everywhere!

 

[LAR-15]

The US export controls are so strict that the US State Department has virtually halted all exports of US AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles.

At least that is what I have read from foreign shooters (outside US)

Even Canadian shooters are having problems importing AR-15 parts from the US