Politics Magazine

UN Small Arms Treaty, Good Or Bad for America?

Posted on the 09 May 2013 by Barrysblogging

Since 2006, the UN has been framing an Arms Trade Treaty, to be applied to the import and export of all arms from small arms to tanks, aircraft, missiles, warships and artillery. It also applies to weapon parts and ammunition. Much has been written about it and there is significant fear among Americans regarding the implementation of this treaty in our country.

So what is actually in the Treaty as it has been adopted by the UN? In Article 5 of the Treaty, the Treaty asks its signer Nation States to establish a list of importers, exporters and end users and the uses of the arms of all the above arms within their State, in accordance to with the sovereign laws of each of those States. It further asks each of these States to make that list available to the Secretariat of the UN and to publish the list as well.  Article 2 of the Treaty exempts Governments importation and exportation from this reporting.
Although there is an attempt to limit the Treaty to arms trafficking only when the trafficking is prohibited by an UN embargo, or international agreements, or if there is a risk that the arms might be used for genocide, breach of Geneva Conventions, attacks against women or civilians (Article 6), this section is so broadly written that it can be used by government to apply it to any arms trafficking.
Even Snopes.com has written about the fear comments that have been appearing, but Snopes has used newspaper articles as its sources for reporting on the content of the treaty, not the treaty itself.
Those favoring this Treaty have expressed the desire to do something to limit arms and ammunition access by radicals, jihadists, terrorists, Rogue nations and revolutionaries in order to have a positive effect on genocide, etc. The implication is that significant limitation of access will reduce the incidence of these terrible happenings.
Those in the USA opposed to the Treaty have based their opposition on its potential for abuse by Government to establish a Gun Registry that could lead to gun seizures, disarming of the public by Government, in violation of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, it could limit importation of firearms and repair parts by Glock, Steyr, FN, and many other popular guns manufactured outside the USA.
As written in the Treaty, these fears appear to be justifiable. Article 5 specifically demands the establishment and publication of a Government list of gun owners, importers, and exporters;  ”Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list to apply the provisions of the Treaty”. In Article 8 the Treaty states; “Each importing State Party shall take measures to regulate…imports of conventional weapons as defined in Article 2…”
Thus, in the final analysis of the Treaty as written, the Congress would have to repeal existing laws prohibiting the funding of implementation of a National Gun Registry in order to comply with this Treaty. In addition, is it not unrealistic to assume that persons desiring to wage a war, or to commit genocide, terror or jihad would not find a way to obtain the weapons they might desire despite the presence of such a Treaty? We cannot arrive at any conclusion other than that held by President Bush prior to the election of President Obama, this Treaty cannot be signed by our country without major changes in our existing laws, changes that are not favored by our populace.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog