This diary will explore questions raised by reviewing said passed UN Resolution.
http://www.reuters.com/...
But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.
-cut-
An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.
-cut-
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.
-cut-
Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."
Since the claims above state that it will not effect sales within the United States, let's have a look at the meat of the proposed treaty itself, shall we?
Proposed Treaty link:
http://www.poa-iss.org/...
II. Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects
At the national level:
1. ...eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.
2. To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons, in order to prevent illegal manufacture of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, or their diversion to unauthorized recipients.
3. The necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offences under their domestic law the illegal manufacture, possession, stockpiling and trade of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction, in order to ensure that those engaged in such activities can be prosecuted under appropriate national penal codes.
I'd question: “in all its aspects”, Does this mean any material that can be utilized in the creation, manufacture, distribution and selling? Say, iron, drill bits, glue, gasoline, cars, wood crates, paper for invoices, black powder, brass? If I have a lathe machine, does it now fall under this treaty? Does my drill, my hacksaw, my car, my laser printer, my measuring tape, my writing utensils? Since all these things could be utilized to manufacture said items, must I now get a government permit to buy them?
Since the term “in all its aspects” is repeated throughout this declaration, this needs to be refined.
I'd question: What makes a person “unauthorized”? If you sell, trade or give your grandfathers revolver to your own grandchild, whom is studying abroad, is your grandchild now “unauthorized”? Are you “unauthorized” to do so?
What would it take to make them an “authorized” recipient?
A mandatory training class, at your own expense? “X” number of hours at an approved firing range? A physical examination, to make sure you are strong enough to hold & control said firearm? A psychological test to ensure you aren't “mentally unstable”? A government issued “certificate” to acquire said small arms? Or just being on a government list of approved buyers & sellers? Who maintains said list?
I'd question: What is their definition of “stockpiling”? Does my neighbor that has 200 rounds of ammo for their firearm constitute “stockpiling”? Or is it 2000 rounds? Or 20,000 rounds? How many “small arms” is considered “stockpiling”? Again, 2, 10, 200???
Who decides these limits on an unalienable right? Do we limit the number of pens, paper, printing presses you can own? Does our government tell us when or how often we can exercise a religion?
Definition of “small arms”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Small arms is a term of art used by armed forces to denote infantry weapons an individual soldier may carry. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns (e.g. M60), and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general-purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces.
Small arms typically do not include infantry support weapons. In the U.S. military, small arms refer to handguns or other firearms less than 20mm in caliber, and including heavy machine guns (typically .50 caliber or 12.7mm in U.S. service).[1] The NATO definition extends to "all crew-portable direct fire weapons of a calibre less than 50mm and will include a secondary capability to defeat light armour and helicopters."[2]
Though there is no civilian definition within the U.S., any firearm utilizing a projectile greater than 1/2 inch (.50 caliber or 12.7mm) in diameter is legally defined as a "destructive device," while anything .50 caliber or less is normally considered "small arms." The so-called "1/2 inch rule" does not apply to shotguns, sporting cartridge big bore rifles (such as rifles chambered in .600 Nitro Express) or muzzleloading black powder firearms, many of which are larger than .50 caliber.[3]
The above definitions lead me to this acronym, SALW- Small Arms & Light Weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Defined as:
Small arms: hand-held small caliber firearms, usually consisting of handguns, rifles, shotguns, manual, semi-automatic, and full automatic weapons and man-portable machineguns.
Light weapons: Includes a wide range of medium-caliber and explosive ordnance, including man-portable and vehicle-mounted antipersonnel, antitank and antiaircraft rockets, missiles, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, landmines, antiaircraft guns, mortars, hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and so on.
SALW include all arms that can be used by one person alone and all associated ammunition, including grenades, rockets, missiles, mortar shells and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), and that landmines can be considered as having similar effects...
So, from the above cited definitions, its clear that ammo and hand-held small caliber firearms are covered.
4. To establish, or designate as appropriate, national coordination agencies or bodies and institutional infrastructure responsible for policy guidance, research and monitoring of efforts to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. This should include aspects of the illicit manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.
5. To establish or designate, as appropriate, a national point of contact to act as liaison between States on matters relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action.
6. To identify, where applicable, groups and individuals engaged in the illegal manufacture, trade, stockpiling, transfer, possession, as well as financing for acquisition, of illicit small arms and light weapons, and take action under appropriate national law against such groups and individuals.
7. To ensure that henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process. This marking should be unique and should identify the country of manufacture and also provide information that enables the national authorities of that country to identify the manufacturer and serial number so that the authorities concerned can identify and trace each weapon.
8. To adopt where they do not exist and enforce, all the necessary measures to prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons.
Section #4 tells us that there will be at least 3 distinct divisions:
Policy Guidance,
Research &
Monitoring. It also states,
“Or Bodies”. Does this mean the Brady Center will have new authorities, duties, obligations? Will the NRA also be represented in this? Should any NGO's be? With their own inherent biases and agendas (on both sides).
The answer is YES:
Section #20
20. To develop and implement, including in conflict and post-conflict situations, public awareness and confidence-building programmes on the problems and consequences of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, including, where appropriate, the public destruction of surplus weapons and the voluntary surrender of small arms and light weapons, if possible, in cooperation with civil society and non-governmental organizations, with a view to eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.
And Section #40:
40. To encourage the relevant international and regional organizations and States to facilitate the appropriate cooperation of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, in activities related to the prevention, combat and eradication of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, in view of the important role that civil society plays in this area.
Where do the funds come from for these things? The gun owner? General Taxes? Surcharges? Fees? Must there be one for each US State? This goes hand-in-hand with the “national point of contact” in Section #5.
Now we come to enforcement duties/obligations.
Sections #3, #4, #6, #8 all seem to say something about this. What would be adequate punishment for violations? 2 yrs in prison with fines? Lifetime disbarment from possessing any firearms? A strongly worded admonition by a Judge, whilst they shake their finger at you, saying: “Don't do that again!”???
The Pandorica opens. Since it is constitutional for “reasonable regulation”. What if we changed very little? Would the fellow signatory Nations accept this as legitimate? We have the FBI's NICS system, would it now be mandatory for all private sales? The alleged gun show loophole effectively being closed as compliance requirements.
Since Section #8 addresses unmarked or inadequately marked small arms, does this now require any firearms manufactured pre-1968 (The Gun Control Act) be destroyed, surrendered, marked, modified and/or registered? Would they still be exempt??? Again, legitimate honest participation in this agreement would require such, would it not?
What would the other signatories say? Would they be obligated to ban exports to the US under this agreement? What if the penal codes enacted required the “strongly worded admonition”? What guarantees are there that future administrations would not “tweak” the penal codes to make them ever more substantive? I seriously can hear the argument being put forth; if you violate said international agreement you can, through “due process” lose your unalienable right to bear arms forevermore and such decision being upheld as “constitutional.” You broke the law, you lose your rights. That IS how it works, correct?
Since international definitions do not equal our current definitions of "small arms", would shotguns and long rifles and their accompanying ammo have to be redefined? Thus ensuring compliance? What definition supersedes the other? Let's say we don't change the definitions, can they be changed in the future? Say the other signatories put up a stink and they demand we change our definitions.
They've already phrased future arguments as "civilized society". Well, in a civilized society, we don't need to kill our food, or defend ourselves! In a civilized society citizens do not need firearms!" Could they try to shame American Diplomats into acquiescing? Would they be compelled legally to do so?
How can there be a legitimate agreement between different parties if they can't or don't agree on the basic definitions of the terms?
If Amnesty International has their way, why yes, shotguns and long rifles would have to be included:
http://www.amnesty.org/...
(note on link above, see flash show at bottom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
The Amnesty International website "loopholes" include shotguns marketed for deer hunting that are virtually the same as military/police shotguns and rifles marketed for long range target shooting that are virtually the same as military/police sniper rifles. AI advocates that the civilian guns must be included in any workable arms trade controls; otherwise, governments could authorize export/import of sporting guns virtually the same as military/police weapons in function.[23]
Now, with my cursory review of said agreement, I found nothing that claims it would not effect intra-national sales of firearms, i.e., sales within the United States. A couple of passing references to State Constitutions (international "states"):
17. To ensure, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, that the armed forces, police or any other body authorized to hold small arms and light weapons establish adequate and detailed standards and procedures relating to the management and security of their stocks of these weapons.
And this:
18. To regularly review, as appropriate, subject to the respective constitutional and legal systems of States, the stocks of small arms and light weapons held by armed forces, police and other authorized bodies and to ensure that such stocks declared by competent national authorities to be surplus to requirements are clearly identified, that programmes for the responsible disposal, preferably through destruction, of such stocks are established and implemented and that such stocks are adequately safeguarded until disposal.
Do these sections not directly effect every Police Department within the United States? Must they devise or implement an approved programme and submit them to, as yet unknown, a State, Regional or National Director or Agency? Who pays for the man-hours needed to accomplish said tasks?
While this might not truly be an issue, I'd have to assume that all government owned & supplied weapons are secure and regularly inventoried, even at the local level but that is just my assumption here.
So, what happens if there is a discrepancy from the weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly inventory? Who formulates the procedures. At what level is a Police Departments "stocks" too high? Is this an arbitrary thing, for each locale to decide what they believe is appropriate?
These sections go against many Police Department policies of selling surplus firearms to fund operations or bring in a little extra cash, doesn't it?
Off topic a bit but I recall the Pentagon shooter's gun originally came from a Tennessee Police Department:
http://www.cnn.com/...
Some cities destroy weapons that come into their possession. A former New York Police Department official said the city sends as many as 20,000 guns a year to be smelted for scrap metal.
But a bill signed on the same day as the Pentagon shooting bars Tennessee police from destroying contraband guns. It says they must either sell such weapons or use them unless a police official "certifies to the court the weapon is inoperable or unsafe."
So, to comply with this new UN Treaty, would Tennessee have to change their State laws on selling firearms? Just a curious thought here.
Since the US government is the largest source of small arms in the entire world, this treaty grants explicit exceptions for multi-national security agreements. What's the point here then? We fund many "insurgent" groups in varying ways. Dominican Republic, Libya, Egypt, etc. Are we going to stop our international "endeavors" to militarily control the entire world??? Will our corporate overlords allow for their profits from small arms to be curtailed?
I think not.
Now we have this final point of "authenticated end-user" and a "certificate".
12. To put in place and implement adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the effective control over the export and transit of small arms and light weapons, including the use of authenticated end-user certificates and effective legal and enforcement measures.
What makes one an "authenticated end user"? Is it the arms importer, the local gun shop owner,
your zombie apocalypse prepper neighbor? The local police department requisition manager or the actual person whom uses said instrument? How does one get their "certificate" as an authorized end user?
On a side note here: What about replacement parts? Are they subject to this treaty? Say Columbus Police Department needs to replace worn firing pins, or sights or whatever. Must they keep track of all items & report their purchase, etc, as was stated at the beginning, "in all it's aspects"? Must anyone whom may currently own one of the listed small arms do the same?
This section goes hand-in-hand with the national reporting requirements. Does this mean that dastardly shotgun (and/or long rifle) NYS doesn't require I get their permission to own, if I give it to someone else, must that transfer be "registered" and then reported to the importing Nation?
Now, since I've had an exercise in futility here. You know what would wipe out all my reservations? A clause stating that it does not effect Private Sales, Public Sales or any Sales within the United States. Pretty simple. Say a clause that states, this agreement only effects exporting and importing brokers duly authorized by our government.
Hummm...I searched for a couple hours looking for that clause...funny I found link after link referring me to this same article:
http://www.undispatch.com/...
“the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
With a general link to the
UN Documents page here.
Sadly, many of the links didn't load, damn TimeWarner! If anyone could find this specific clause for me, I'd be grateful. I cannot verify that the clause is actually in the treaty. Since it is not specifically included on the UN's Action Program page.
Now since it is claimed to be an addendum, does this mean that it could be removed sometime in the future? Could it be just ignored? Say once this treaty is passed & ratified, the dreams of a world living in peace do not materialize. Could the other signatory Nations demand it? Would that nullify the actual treaty itself then? Treaties get "re-interpreted" all the time, what makes anyone believe this couldn't be done as well?