Part 7 (1/2)

[S]mall arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive acc.u.mulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.

Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.5

Of course, why this international trend should empower a UN agency to ban or limit US privately owned weaponry is not clear. Most nations have no right to bear arms and have made private possession illegal. As the horrific toll of international violence makes abundantly clear, these laws are not well enforced.

But, in the United States, murder is a decreasing problem. In 1993, there were 24,530 homicides in the United States.6 Today, despite an increase in population from 250 million to 310 million, the number of homicides has dropped almost in half, to 13,756. Of these, 9,203 involved the use of a firearm.7

With gun violence decreasing sharply, why would we be interested in signing a global gun control treaty? The answer is clear: globalist and left-wing pressure. The liberals say that they want us to be bound by the treaty because the US is the source of 40 percent of the global arms trade.8 But most of that is sold by the government, not by private individuals. The US, Russia, China, Israel, and Germany are the world's leading arms exporters. But the treaty is aimed at individuals, who account for a small minority of the arms traffic.

Thomas Countryman, a US a.s.sistant secretary of state, made it clear in April 2012 that the treaty is not aimed at governments. Least of all, ours. ”We do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more c.u.mbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face.”9

Those who die at the hands of such legitimate arms sales will doubtless be comforted.

GUN REGULATIONS ON THE WAY

The Treaty includes, according to the Independent Sentinel, ”the creation of a new UN agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.”10

Gun control opponents, writing in the Independent Sentinel, predict that,

disguised as ... a treaty to fight against ”terrorism,” ”insurgency,” and ”international crime syndicates,” the treaty would undoubtedly:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

2. Confiscate and destroy all ”unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

3. Ban the trade, sale and private owners.h.i.+p of all semi-automatic weapons;

4. Create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.11

While the treaty will doubtless be filled with rea.s.suring disclaimers, former US amba.s.sador to the UN John Bolton has seen this kind of thing before. ”After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts owners.h.i.+p of firearms,” he warns. ”The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context... . They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise.”12

Tom Mason, who represented the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting at the UN conference, said, ”The treaty is a significant threat to gun owners. I think the biggest threat may be the body that would administer the treaty.”13

The ATT sets up an Implementation Support Unit to administer its provisions. Defenders of the treaty counter that it will clearly recognize the right of individual and national self-defense and say that it will be administered by the individual nations themselves, not by the UN.

But the draft treaty provides that ”parties [to the ATT] shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories ... to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users.”14

Opponents of the treaty warn that the Implementation Support United established by the ATT will increase its own powers to make sure that nations who sign the treaty ”take all necessary measures” to enforce its ban on arms trafficking. They point out that UN treaties are subject to the kind of mission creep that Amba.s.sador Bolton warns about.

One hundred and thirty members of Congress-organized by Pennsylvania Republican congressman Mike Kelly-wrote to President Obama on July 1, 2012, to express their opposition and concern about the ATT. ”The UN's actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our const.i.tutional rights,” reads the letter. ”The US must establish firm red lines for the ATT and state unequivocally that it will oppose the ATT if it infringes on our rights or threatens our ability to defend our interests.”15 The congressmen demanded that the treaty exclude small arms and ammunition and recognize the right of individual self-defense.

The National Rifle a.s.sociation attacked the treaty. ”Any international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that in any way, shape or form affects the const.i.tutional rights of American gun owners is unacceptable,”16 Chris c.o.x, executive director of the NRA's Inst.i.tute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. ”International organizations and foreign governments do not have the right to restrict the fundamental freedoms handed down to us from our Founding Fathers.”

NRA President Wayne LaPierre testified before the U.N. that ”on behalf of all NRA members and American gun owners, we are here to announce that we will not tolerate any attack-from any ent.i.ty or organization whatsoever-on our Const.i.tution or on the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”17