The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is back in the news after a brief respite for the elections. Shortly after President Obama’s re-election victory the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee wasted no time in calling for a new round of negotiations. Predictably we have been assured by some in Washington that the treaty will not infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights.
“We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” the official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” he said.
Of course there are those on the other side of the fence who are more skeptical and outline some of the flaws associated with the current draft treaty.
The treaty is very likely to apply to a very wide range of items and activities, including all conventional weapons, their parts and components, and technology and equipment for their manufacture. Ammunition may also be included, and—in addition to imports, exports, and transfers—brokering (i.e., third-party facilitation of transfers), technology transfers, and manufacturing under license are also very likely to be included.
Finally, in addition to the usual extensive preamble and statements of principles and objectives, the treaty is very likely to require record keeping and reporting, to establish regular review conferences to revise and extend the treaty, and to seek to be universal (that is, ratified by all of the world’s nations) in scope.
You can access the current draft of the treaty here , I suggest you read it for yourself. One of the concerns I have is the vague language used with respect to the implementation of the treaty, in order to meet the proposed goals and objectives. In other words in order to “establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms…”
Article 5: General Implementations
4. Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of the Treaty. A State Party shall notify the secretariat, established under article 12, of its national point(s) of contact and keep the information updated.
5. States Parties involved in an international transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use.
What does that mean to you? The way it reads it could mean any number of things, it’s really based on who interprets it. The way I see it the verbiage clearly opens the door to mandatory registration and who knows what else. I like to call it the slow creep, a tactic often employed by gun grabbers. First you mandate registrations (for our safety) and once that has had time to sink in more laws are passed restricting certain types of weapons (assault weapons, for our safety of course). Older assault weapons are not grandfathered in and now that there conveniently exists a national registry people will have no choice but to turn in their guns. Slowly the noose tightens as complacent citizens stand by and do nothing. If you don’t think it’s possible check out how this whole scenario played out in Great Britain and Australia. The slow creep tactic was employed, citizens didn’t resist and before they knew it they were disarmed by their own governments.
So how did the gun ban work out for Australia?
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Gun bans have fared no better in reducing violence Great Britain. Yet there are those within our own country who suggest Britain’s model for gun control is one which we should follow, a suggestion I find laughable at best.
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent. In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
Preppers without guns might as well be birds without wings. This is not to suggest that only preppers should be entitled to owning firearms, but rather we especially have put a significant amount of time and money into preparing for uncertain times. If things go south we will need ways to protect ourselves, our prepper supplies and those whom we love. It is very important that we understand the threats to our gun rights as citizens, do not stand by idly while they are slowly chipped away and support organizations which are capable of standing up to the United Nations.