Misinformation concerning the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons

[Euromutt]

This thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331526 got locked before I could respond to it, so I'm starting a new thread to point out some... inaccuracies in the Human Events article cited in the OP (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38103&s=rcme).

The article states:

The U.N. program of action concerning SALW includes restrictions on the manufacturing, storing, transferring and possession of firearms and ammunition if it is not adequately marked. It ensures that once SALW’s program is enacted all licensed manufacturers must apply a unique marking identifying the country of manufacture, manufacturer and serial number of the weapon. Weapons that lack this unique marking that are confiscated, seized or collected will be destroyed. These restrictions will be enforced on a national, regional and global scale.

Once the treaty is signed, if you happen to own a gun that was manufactured without this “unique marking,” you are in violation of the law and must turn over your weapon to authorities. This includes guns that were obtained legally.

Let's take a look at what the Programme of Action ("PoA" http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx) actually says:

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.

Italics mine. That word "henceforth" makes rather a crucial difference to the article author's claim. Of course, the United States has already required this for all newly manufactured or imported firearms since the implementation of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It's unclear to me where the author gets the idea that it would be made illegal to possess a firearm without such a marking, since the PoA makes no mention of any such measure. Insofar as I can tell, this is simply a fabrication on the author's part.

John Bolton, US Representative to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, says, “The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

I'll start believing anything John Bolton says about the UN the day after I get my lobotomy. I'd be significantly more persuaded if they'd asked the opinion of Bill Richardson; Richardson is, after, a former ambassador to the UN, and pro-RKBA, but unlike Bolton, he's not known to be reflexively biased against the entire organization.

The rest of the piece is just so much sparring with a straw man; even taking it as read that the claims made are all correct (which, insofar as I can tell, they are), they address a purpose of the PoA that exists mostly in the author's imagination. The purpose of the PoA is to restrict the availability of small arms and light weapons to organized criminals, terrorist groups, and the like.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Good info, potentially useful.

Thank you very much for digging into this.

[SteveM]

2. Seems to comport with at least some conservative 2A sites:

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/20/will-obama-sign-un-gun-control-treaty/

The letter from the Montana organization cited reflects to undue concern with the U.N. proposals.