United Nations

Uncategorized

Arms Trade Treaty Talks – Day 4

July 8, 2012 by 1 Comment

Ginny Simone of NRA News discusses Day 4 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty talks with Tom Mason of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. They discussed the organizational difficulties, the committees that will deal with the scope of the treaty as well as its preamble, the right to self defense (of the state and not the individual), and the refusal of many states to differentiate between military firearms and civilian firearms.

Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation has his summation of the day’s event’s here. Bromund says that Venezuela won “the crazy prize” for their rant against “imperialists”:

In previous sessions, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia had all put in strong showings with speeches that were unprincipled and autocrat-friendly, but when it came to crazy, Venezuela lapped the field with a speech that will be tough to beat.

In a lengthy rant attacking the “maturity” of the assembled nations, it denounced the “imperial powers” for arming the Libyan rebels who overthrew Muammar Qadhafi, demanded that the world look seriously at controlling the “imperialists” (i.e., the U.S.) who had nuclear weapons, condemned foreign aid providers for insisting on the “downsizing” of governments, and stated that it needed arms to deal with internal threats (i.e., to continue to oppress its own population).

Uncategorized

And They Want You To Believe In That Fairy Tale Called The UN, Too

July 7, 2012 by 3 Comments

The State Department is saying that the Arms Trade Treaty won’t handicap our Second Amendment rights according to a story in TheHill.com.

“The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,” Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet.

The tweet links to a list of “redlines” the administration has established for the treaty, which aims to “establish common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms to help prevent the acquisition of arms by terrorists, criminals, and those who violate human rights or are subject to UN arms embargoes.” The United Nations is scheduled to spend all month trying to devise a treaty that all its members can agree to.

The “redlines” as published on the State Department’s website include:

  • The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
  • The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
  • The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
  • There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
  • There will be no lowering of current international standards.
  • Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
  • The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
  • There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

Color me skeptical of both the State Department and the United Nations when it comes to arms control. As to the Second Amendment being upheld, given the prevailing opinion of many within this administration, Heller notwithstanding, that it only guarantees a collective right, this seems to me to be a throw-away for them.

The State Department also states that it is the position of the United States that the ATT include parts and components as well as a broadly defined list of armaments including “tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, military aircraft, military helicopters, naval vessels, missiles, missile launchers, small arms and light weapons, and combat support equipment.” If this is the case, then you can kiss parts kits for AKs, FN-FALs, and many other former military rifles and carbines good-bye.

Uncategorized

Arms Trade Treaty Talks – Day 1

July 6, 2012 by

Ginny Simone of NRA News ends the first day of the Arms Trade Treaty Talks with a recap featuring Tom Mason from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. The day was consumed with the argument of whether or not the Palestinians would be seated at the talks. For them, this is a backdoor method of trying to get recognition as a state. The United States was opposed to the seating of the PLO.

The other issue was when NGOs – non-governmental organizations – such as the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation were to speak. They had expected to speak near the end of the talks but their participation has been pushed up to this week. As Ginny notes, it looks like that they want to get the NGOs in and out so they can do whatever they want to do. Mr. Mason tends to agree with her on that.

Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation provides his take on Day 1 here.

Uncategorized

Arms Trade Treaty Talks – Day 2

July 6, 2012 by

On Day 2 of the Arms Trade Treaty Talks at the United Nations, Ginny Simone of NRA News speaks with Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Bromund has been blogging these talks and his post for Day 2 can be found here.

Day 2 was mostly consumed with the Palestinians and their efforts to be seated as an observer states.

Dr. Bromund makes a very good point in this video about all the nations who are pushing for the Arms Trade Treaty. They are insisting it is needed so that the standards for buying and selling arms are raised. If that is the case, Dr. Bromund asks why do they need a treaty to raise the standards when they can do it themselves. I think we know that the issue really isn’t standards but control.

Uncategorized

Arms Trade Treaty Talks – Day 3

July 6, 2012 by

At the United Nations, Ginny Simone of NRA News talks to Tom Mason from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. Among the topics discussed were the seating of the Palestinian Authority as an observer, the push by Norway to include all firearms in the treaty including civilian firearms, and how the conference is totally ignoring the constitutional guarantees such as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation has more on Day 3 at his blog here. Or as he calls Day 3, “the International League of Supervillians speaks.

Uncategorized

Reparations? Utter Nonsense From The UN

April 10, 2012 by 3 Comments

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has now weighed in on the Trayvon Martin cases and says reparations are due. Excuse me? Reparations? You have to wonder how an organization such as the UN was allowed to fall so low over the years.

Although local, state and federal inquiries have been underway for weeks, Pillay called for “an immediate investigation” into the shooting.

“Justice must be done for the victim,” she told a media briefing in Hastings, on the southern end of the Caribbean island [of Barbados]. “It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.”

“In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case. It shouldn’t be so,” Pillay continued. “The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

Pillay, a South African jurist, was appointed U.N. rights chief in 2008 and is based in Geneva, at the home of the U.N. Human Rights Council. She is a former judge at the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

According to her official bio she has masters and doctorate degrees from Harvard University in human rights and international law. I’m sure Harvard is very proud of her but one does have to wonder just exactly what she learned in Cambridge.

Uncategorized

Satirizing The United Nations

April 9, 2012 by

Daniel Drezner is a Professor of International Politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is also a good satirist if his latest column in Foreign Policy is any example.

Prof. Drezner wondered how a United Nations communique regarding the Jewish Exodus from Egypt might read. Here is how he envisions the Russian response in the UN Security Council.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin delivered a blistering response, arguing that it was the radical Jewsish leaders who had escalated the situation by resorting to weapons of mass destruction and demanding that Moses be indicted by the International Criminal Court as a war criminal: “It was not the Phaaroh who imposed unspeakable sanctions against the Egyptian people. It was not the Phaaroh who slaughtered every first-born male child in Egypt — except the Jews — in a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions. Surely, not a house in Egypt was spared from this , this plague. It was not the Phaaroh who resorted to trickery in the Red Sea, luring innocent Egyptian troops into the kill zone before massacring them. Both sides are equally guilty in the bloodshed, and until both sides renounce violence, a peaceful solution will be nothing but a mirage of the desert.”

Read the whole thing and laugh. And then begin to frown when you realize that these same clowns are trying to come up with an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate small arms and ammunition. To top it off, the Obama Administration has said they support this treaty unlike their predecessors who told the UN to pound sand as it violated our Second Amendment.

Uncategorized

NRA Head Addresses UN Conference

July 14, 2011 by

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP and CEO, of the NRA addressed the UN’s Preparatory Committee on the Arms Trade Treaty today. His remarks to this group are below. The gist of his remarks were that the NRA will fight tooth and nail any effort to regulate U.S. civilian firearms ownership by the UN. Moreover, he reminded them that treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and they isn’t going to happen if he can help it.

I’m sure his remarks were received politely but wouldn’t be that popular with the prohibitionist agenda prevalent amongst the less than democratic countries which comprise the majority of the UN’s membership.

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Preparatory Committee – 3d Session
New York, July 11-15, 2011
Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The
NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

We’ve watched, and read … listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.” Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s exactly what is now being proposed – with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit” merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is
critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I ‘d be remiss if I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is
currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

Uncategorized

UN Meeting On Small Arms Treaty

July 11, 2011 by

The Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is meeting at the United Nations in New York this week. The Second Amendment Foundation is accredited to the UN as an NGO – Non-Governmental Organization – through its membership on the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Sports Activities and has people attending the meeting. I will have more on this meeting later.

The Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel, is in attendance at the Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in New York this week.

These meetings lay the ground work for the final negotiation sessions of the ATT in 2012. SAF’s position is firm – an ATT which in any way affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is totally unacceptable. Civilian firearms and ammunition must not be within the scope of the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. There is no compromise on this crucial point.

The Second Amendment Foundation has been active for years at the United Nations both its headquarters in New York and Vienna, Austria and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-gun rights initiatives that would restrict our sovereignty. In addition to attending the first two preparatory meetings, SAF was represented at the May meeting of Governmental Experts where marking, tracing and record keeping policies were discussed.

SAF is a Member of the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations. This status allows us to closely monitor the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members and supporters.

This NGO status has also allowed SAF to take an active role in speaking at the UN, most recently at the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2010.

In addition to its UN and World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, SAF is a founding member of The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) which includes scores of national and international organizations, representing tens of millions of firearm and knife owners worldwide.

In March, Alan and Julianne received a commemorative muzzleloading rifle in recognition for their international work protecting the rights of gun owners presented by FISAT (the Italian shooters association), and Chiappa Firearms during the EXA exhibition in Brescia, Italy.

Uncategorized

Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments

July 24, 2010 by

Today’s Washington Times features an editorial about the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. They call it a threat to both the First and Second Amendments of our Constitution. Of course, they are right. The editorial follows on the heels of a report released by the Heritage Foundation on the UN and “arms control”.

Theodore Bromund, one of the authors of the Heritage Foundation’s report, is quoted as saying that he thinks micro-stamping will be included, that there will be some sort of gun registration and licensing system, that this licensing system will cover both guns and ammo, and that there may even be restrictions on trade between private individuals.

The Washington Times takes a dim view of the whole thing as well as the role of the Obama Administration in it.

Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual’s protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush’s administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.