U.N. Gun Treaty Not Looking as Restrictive as Anti-Gun Advocates Want, Maybe After the Election?

because only the state can be trusted with force, and no one at the u.n. knows any historyUnited NationsThe United Nations has been working on a new small arms treaty this month and now a draft text is emerging. And though the president shows a misunderstanding of the second amendment and doesn’t appear much of a gun rights defender to anyone, in the negotiations for the treaty, it was the United States throwing blankets on the wet dreams of international gun control advocates.

Anti-gun advocates at the conference, for example, wanted to target bullets. From IPS:

“At the moment, the treaty is covering some weapons but not bullets, which are literally the fuel of conflict,” [Oxfam’s head of global arms control Anna] McDonald said… “It doesn’t make sense,” McDonald told IPS. “The U.S. is the government that’s holding out the strongest against the inclusion of ammunition, but it actually regulates its own ammunition exports.”

U.S. negotiators say such regulations would be too burdensome. So not pro-gun, but anti-regulation is close to a first too.  Anti-gun advocates are hopeful though that things will get better for them if Obama gets re-elected:

“Sadly for the millions of lives at risk elsewhere in the world, U.S. politics in an election year prevents the Obama administration from taking a bold stand to champion its own model laws,” Kathi Austin, executive director of the Conflict Awareness Project and former U.N. arms investigator, told IPS.

“President Obama is a crucial decision maker and the U.S. could stand up firm in terms of ensuring that these loopholes are closed in the final day of negotiations,” Hughes added.

The treaty’s unlikely to be finalized before the election. President Bush refused to include the United States in negotiations on the treaty, effectively scuttling them, but presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney hasn’t stated a position on the issue. Were the president to sign the treaty, it would still need to pass with sixty seven votes in the Senate. Fifty one Senators have announced they’ll oppose the treaty if it infringes on the right to bear arms, though given their Constitutional oaths maybe it should have been more? If the Senate does ratify the treaty and it includes an end-run on the Second Amendment, there’s always, maybe, the Supreme Court, which in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert ruled that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution,” which is at least as good as a parchment guarantee.

The United Nations does not (pdf) consider self-defense a human right, but does consider severe restrictions on gun ownership a human right, because the United Nations does not understand what a right is. The U.S. has always been the largest financer of the U.N. (a World War 2 brain child of FDR and Winston Churchill) and U.S. spending on the U.N. hit an all time high in 2012.

More Reason on gun rights and the United Nations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Another reason to boot the UN off our soil.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Conflict Awareness Project"

    This deserves its own separate drizzling of chocolatey derision sauce.

  • juris imprudent||

    Because conflict never generates enough attention on its own.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You don't take the UN seriously, do you? They are impotent wimps who couldn't even slow down Dumbya's War of Aggression against Iraq or a skirmish in the Falkland Islands.

    The UN is completely useless and is basically just a boogeyman for US wingnuts to bitch about.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, I don't. Which is why I said what I just fucking said, two posts up.

    You are an addle-brained leftist, though, so I will cut you some slack. Just this once.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You left out Korea and Vietnam, by the way. Then again, you're a fucking retard.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Told you... "just this once".

  • Agammamon||

    Are . . . are you talking to yourself?

  • Killazontherun||

    His every post is that of a pig basting in a sauce devised of its own weakness. I don't know why you don't sit back and enjoy the meal as it does the prep work for you.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Sorry offended your ladylike GOP sensibilities.

  • Killazontherun||

    oink! gibberish. oink! gibberish. oink!

    That is what I hear.

  • ||

    The UN is completely useless and is basically just a boogeyman for US wingnuts to bitch about.

    The UN was used for justification of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Said invasion and occupation approved in part by shrike's favorite political party.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    After Colin Powell lied for two hours in an address to them. Only then did Dick and George muscle their way past the Senate.

    I also blame Hillary Clinton who wanted to look manly for her POTUS run.

  • Tman||

    "Muscle" their way? 82 democrats in the house and 29 in the senate voted for the Iraq AUMF.

    They didn't need to muscle anything.

    God you're a dope.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    After they were lied to by Dickless Cheney and the CIA.

    The Senate was told Saddam Hussein had UAV loaded with dirty nukes off the coast of the Eastern USA.

  • Tman||

    Um, no they weren't. Read the AUMF again.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P.....ubl243.pdf

    Nothing about UAV's with dirty nukes loaded off the coast of the Eastern USA.

    I realize that in your own fevered ego you refuse to face the facts, but it is what it is.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course its not in the AUMF. Here is the Senate Record -

    http://www.fas.org/irp/congres.....2804b.html

    Glad to see your GOP Bushpig stripes on your sleeve.

  • Ed||

    "I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the
    means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass
    destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.
    Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could
    be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern
    seaboard cities of the United States."

    And Bill Nelson and the rest of the clowns in the Senate didn't bother to think for themselves, just go with George Bush and get re-elected! Worked for most of them, and look, only two election cycles later the story is they were lied to, not that they were spineless. How convenient!

  • Tman||

    Um, the AUMF contained about 20 odd specific reasons for removing Saddam. About three of them were related to WMD's.

    Yes, the WMD's were not what they were made up to be, but everything else was completely accurate.

    Knowing that you think I'm a GOP Bushpig pleases me to no end. I soak in your irrelevance and stupidity and amuse myself as you constantly get embarrassed around here.

  • DRM||

    The fact that they're useless looks like an excellent reason to zero our contributions and kick them out of the US. Let that mess of assholes clutter up Geneva or something, and let the UN building and the diplomats' apartments get filled by useful, taxpaying citizens.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttjuice,

    You don't take the UN seriously, do you?


    You mean someone out there does?

    They are impotent wimps who couldn't even slow down Dumbya's War of Aggression against Iraq or a skirmish in the Falkland Islands.


    Or the invasion of Tibet. Or of Hungary.

    Zoing!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttjuice,

    The UN is completely useless and is basically just a boogeyman for US wingnuts to bitch about.


    That's a pretty expensive boogeyman for US wingnuts to bitch about.

  • Ed||

    Not related enough but I came across this gem from the UN on law enforcement: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/firearms.htm

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The UN is completely useless and is basically just a boogeyman for anti-Israel wingnuts to bitch about.

    There. Much better.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    How many Muslim-Nut countries are on the Security council (with veto rights)?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How many Muslim-Nut countries are on the Security council (with veto rights)?

    France, for one.

  • Pro Libertate||

  • Killazontherun||

    Ha! Take that little drummer girls of China!

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's right, the UK is back to its badass ways! Watch out former colonies!

  • Paul.||

    All true British don't refer to them as former colonies...

  • ||

    Yeah, color me skeptical. On Craig too.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Come on, dude, it's right there, on tape!

  • Tman||

    My favorite part of the UN is the UN Human Rights Council.

    The one that put Libya as Chair of the council itself.

    Good times.

  • Paul.||

    The UN should get a Peace Prize.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Already did in 2001. Several UN agencies and Dag Hammerschmoldjingleheimerschmidt were previously awarded.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...though given their Constitutional oaths maybe it should have been more?

    That oath is an inconvenient treaty.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Kathi Austin, executive director of the Conflict Awareness Project and former U.N. arms investigator,

    How much does a concern trolling parasite pull down in a gig like that?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If the Senate does ratify the treaty and it includes an end-run on the Second Amendment, there’s always, maybe, the Supreme Court, which in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert ruled that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution,” which is at least as good as a parchment guarantee.

    Fortunately, SCOTUS has been reasonable about 2A issues in the last decade or so. Though not perfect, both Heller and McDonald set specific precedent that Americans have a right to keep personal weapons. I can't imagine the court overturning their own precedent by ruling that some other body can decide the fate of the 2A. And I don't think that the decision would be 5-4 either were it to come to a SCOTUS decision about it. Not even the liberal wing is dumb enough to cede our rights to the UN.

    It also occurs to me that those who cherish the 2A probably wouldn't stand for it either, and we would see exactly why we have the 2A codified in to law.

  • Keith3D||

    They stole the "bullet control" idea from Chris Rock.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement