The UN And International Treaties

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5224

Over the last few weeks, we have received many inquiries regarding the UN and the impact of international treaties on our Second Amendment freedom.

The NRA has been engaged at the United Nations and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-small arms initiatives for over 14 years. In most cases, agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. These instruments are generally promoted by a small group of nations and a large number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in conjunction with departmental bureaucracies in multi-national institutions such as the UN and European Union.

The new U.S. administration, to no one’s surprise, has changed direction in the UN with respect to international small arms control initiatives that were resisted by the previous administration.

The current issue under discussion, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is in the early stages of the negotiation process. There is no actual draft text at this time. Work on the ATT is scheduled to continue by a consensus process between now and 2012. It should be noted that any treaty must be approved by two thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Attempts to thwart our freedoms should be no surprise, given the anti-gun climate of the international community in general, and the current U.S. administration in particular.

More generally, the NRA does not concern itself with foreign policy or arms control initiatives—except to the extent they would directly or indirectly affect Second Amendment rights.

We have been actively opposing transnational efforts that would limit Second Amendment freedoms. For many years, NRA has been monitoring and actively fighting any credible attempts on the part of the UN to restrict our sovereignty and gun rights. As a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations since 1997, NRA gives gun owners a strong voice in the UN’s debate over global “gun control.” As one of over 2,000 NGOs representing everyone from religious groups to the banking industry, NRA has access to UN meetings that are closed to the general public, and is able to distribute informational materials to participants in UN activities.

Most importantly, NRA’s status as an NGO allows us to monitor more closely the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members. The role NRA plays within the UN as an NGO is almost identical to the role our registered lobbyists play every day on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the nation—educating and informing decision-makers of the facts behind the debate, and working to protect the interests of American gun owners and NRA members.

Due to our NGO status, NRA was able to take an active role in thwarting the absurdly titled “UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” in 2006, and the previous meeting, the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” in the summer of 2001.

The UN Small Arms Conference ended in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations, due in large part to the NRA. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearm owners world-wide prevailed. The failure of the program was total; no recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted.

In addition to its UN activities, NRA is a founding member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). The WFSA is an association of hunting, shooting, and industry organizations that was founded in 1996. The WFSA includes over 35 national and international organizations, and represents over 100 million sport shooters worldwide.

NRA members may rest assured that we are actively engaged in international matters. We have never hesitated, nor will we hesitate, to use the political and other resources available to us to resist any international agreement that could in any way affect our Second Amendment rights.

[Tim Nunan]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/the ... d-weapons/

Yesterday, the U.N. released its press kit for the July conference that will finalize the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The most interesting item in the kit is a lengthy paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN.”

This paper perpetuates the belief, on which much of the ATT is based, that the big problem the world faces is a lack of agreed standards on arms transfers. That’s wrong: The big problem the world faces in this regard is that many U.N. member states are dictatorships, supporters of terrorists, or simply incapable of controlling their own borders.

But the paper makes it clear that the job of the U.N.—as the U.N. itself sees it—is to make the case for a very broad treaty. As CASA puts it, “Advocacy efforts should be developed…through relevant reports and op-eds, messages, and statements at relevant meetings and to the press.” So watch out for U.S. taxpayer-funded funded U.N. propaganda in a newspaper near you.

But in spite of its desperate efforts to rebut Second Amendment concerns, the U.N. can’t stop stepping on its own shoelaces. After proclaiming that the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” the CASA paper goes on to say that “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

How, exactly, would the ATT do that if it doesn’t “impede” or “interfere” with lawful ownership? The U.N. would have a lot more credibility on the ATT if it didn’t imply so regularly that the problem is as much lawful ownership as it is the international arms trade.

Of course, CASA isn’t just concerned with lawful ownership; it’s also campaigning against “community attitudes” that “contribute to the powerful cultural conditioning that equates masculinity with owning and using a gun, and regards gun misuse by men as acceptable.”

All this just goes to show that the U.N. regards gun ownership—even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities—as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.

And that is exactly why the concerns that Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) expressed at Heritage on Tuesday are so important—and why his criteria to ensure that the ATT does not infringe on Second Amendment rights are so valuable.

[Fred762]

The UN is one of the MOST anti-freedom orgs in the world..and we Amerikans PAY 50%+ of the whole cost of it, and give them protection while here and a building in which they can work their misery!! I say we need to get OUT of the flippin UN and kick their butts OUT of the USA!!

AS I have said..GUNS have only 2 real enemies...RUST and POLITICIANS

[Tim Nunan]

[]

To: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

July 12, 2012

For more information contact:

Rick Patterson
203-426-4358

SAAMI Testifies at U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), as a recognized non-government organization (NGO) of the United Nations, testified at the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations this week, saying "that hundreds of millions of citizens regularly use firearms for the greater good" and that a "treaty that does not support the positive use of firearms is doomed to cause more harm than good."

Richard Patterson, managing director, addressed the delegates at United Nations headquarters in New York City. SAAMI was established in 1926 at the request of the U.S. government to create safety and reliability standards in the design, manufacture, transportation, storage and use of firearms, ammunition and components.

With its myopic focus on criminal and terrorist misuse of firearms, the treaty lacks a comprehensive view of firearms trade and use. Patterson pointed out the benefits and popularity of target shooting and hunting, and the universality of firearm use for protection. "Regulated hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance with healthy ecosystems and is a major contributor to economic stability--and thereby promotes peace--in rural areas and developing countries," he said. "Target shooting has its roots in the very beginnings of civilization. This is an Olympic year, and shooting events attract the third largest number of participating nations of any sport at the Olympic Games. And people in every nation in this room--including the U.N. itself--use firearms to protect the law abiding and enforce peace."

SAAMI suggested that a step in the right direction would be to have the treaty focus on "fully automatic military firearms only."

SAAMI objected to the inclusion of small arms ammunition in the treaty, and pointed out the impossibility of any such scheme.

"Just as you cannot be all things to all people, this treaty can't either," Patterson said. "Focus on the real problems that can be managed--focus on military weapons, and avoid being distracted by topics like ammunition, which are laudable in their idealism, but completely lacking in their practicality. Be focused, be specific, and draft a treaty with precise definitions that minimize the loopholes of 'creative interpretation.'"

The UN will conclude negotiations on July 27, at which time the text of a treaty will either be approved by consensus, or the treaty will die.

-30-

About SAAMI
Founded in 1926 at the request of the U.S. Federal Government, SAAMI is an association of the nation's leading manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition and components. It publishes voluntary industry standards, coordinates technical data and promotes safe and responsible firearm use. It handles both domestic and international technical and regulatory issues that affect safety and reliability of firearms, ammunition and components. For more information, visit www.saami.org

This communication is distributed by NSSF using Constant Contact email marketing solutions.

National Shooting Sports Foundation | 11 Mile Hill Rd | Newtown | CT | 06470

[Tim Nunan]

http://townhall.com/columnists/edfeulne ... y-n1722003

Ed Feulner

The Law of the Sea Treaty. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Yes, when it comes to international agreements that may seem harmless until you read the fine print, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty has plenty of company. Like the pacts cited above, the ATT has been signed by the U.S., but not ratified by the Senate.

Nor is it likely to be. But that doesn’t mean it won’t prove damaging to the United States and its interests.

The ATT has numerous flaws. Start with the most obvious: the fact that it won’t do what it sets out to do -- regulate the flow of arms to and from rogue states. Major arms exporters such as China and Russia don’t support it, and the idea that it will stop, say, Cuba from continuing to arm North Korea (to name two other notable non-signers) is a joke.

“Like gun-control laws, even with the Arms Trade Treaty, bad actors will continue to act accordingly,” write Sens. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) in a recent op-ed for The Washington Times.

Three years ago, the Obama administration made it quite clear that unanimous global adoption of the ATT was crucial, going so far as to say that “not getting a universal agreement would make any agreement less than useless.”

Sounds pretty damning. Yet fast forward to today, and we have Secretary of State John Kerry telling us -- as he signs that very agreement -- that it will “lift other countries up to the highest standards.” Not a bad trick for a “less than useless” document.

“The inanity of the idea that a mere treaty will be able to do what U.N. Security Council sanctions have been unable to achieve,” The Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund writes, “would be laughable were the subject not so serious.”

But wishful thinking seems to be the order of the day among the ATT’s supporters. As Kerry signed it, for example, he claimed that the treaty “recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”

Actually, it recognizes only that nations have this freedom. When it comes to individuals, the ATT notes merely that it is “mindful of … legitimate trade and lawful ownership” where it is “permitted or protected by law.”

Yes, “mindful.” Not exactly the firm endorsement that Kerry implied in his remarks -- that of the right of individuals to purchase and own guns. Small wonder that Second Amendment groups are alarmed. All Americans should be.

(more at link)