Most of the developed world seems to be living in la-la land when it comes to the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. I would include the Obama Administration in that category despite any reassurances that they might give regarding the Second Amendment. Not so out in la-la land are the Canadians whose statement at the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty talks has some realism in it.
For example, the Canadians insist that it is important for the ATT to recognize the legitimacy of lawful trade in firearms as well as that it recognize “the lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for personal and recreational uses.” They propose adding the following two paragraphs to the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty.
Recognizing that the purpose of the ATT is to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit and irresponsible transfer of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism;
Noting that the ATT acknowledges and respects responsible and accountable trans-national use of firearms for recreational purposes, such as sport shooting, hunting and other similar forms of lawful activities, whose legitimacy is recognised by the State Parties.
I would also add in there the self-defense of individuals but it seems that the United Nations concept of lawful self-defense extends only to nations and not to individuals.
Given the recent experience with their own Firearms Registry and what a colossal and expensive failure it ended up being, it is no surprise that the Canadians say any additional reporting commitments be practical and realistic. They note for large importers and exporters maintaining detailed records of each and every transaction would overwhelm “virtually any administrative system now in existence.”
They go on to add that any reporting requirements must not contain so much details as to impair the national security of individual states nor compromise “the legally-protected information of private companies or the personal information of private individuals.”
I love their last point where they insist that if any new administrative unit is needed to implement and administer a new ATT then its funding should come out of the existing UN budget. Moreover, any new personnel would come from existing UN agencies and be located within existing UN institutions.
The points that the Canadians make notwithstanding, I still think the best treaty is no treaty and that the US should have told the UN to stick their ATT just like it did when John Bolton was the Ambassador to the UN.