Gun Control

Arms Trade Treaty Set to Pass United Nations; "U.S. Virtually Certain to Go Along"

Final draft to be approved by UN member-states later today


not to the government's guns of course
United Nations

After failing last July to negotiate a treaty on global arms control, the United Nations held a second, final conference this week, with today as a deadline to agree on a treaty. All 193 U.N. member states have to agree on the final draft in order for the treaty to move on to the approval process of individual countries. The Associated Press is now reporting that U.N. diplomats and international gun control advocates are confident the conference will adopt the final draft of the treaty. The optimism will be short lived; the U.S. is the largest exporter of arms in the world. Even though the AP reports UN diplomats are "virtually certain" the U.S. will accept the final draft, the treaty doesn't have the two-third majority in the Senate it would need to be ratified. Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe inserted an amendment into the recent budget bill opposing the UN treaty. The amendment passed with 53 votes, all 45 Republicans plus 8 Democrats, revealing a hostile environment for the treaty.

Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained earlier this week what the most recent draft of the treaty meant for the United States; the adoption of a "knowledge standard" about humanitarian abuses means the U.S. could be investigated by the U.N. for what it ought to have known about who it was selling weapons too. More importantly for individual firearms owners, Bromund writes that the draft "still refers to 'end users'—individual firearm owners—in Article 11. It effectively makes the definitions of arms contained in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms nationally binding, which turns part of this voluntary program into a binding treaty commitment and would increase the pressure on the U.S. to include small arms in the formal register." At Fox News, John Lott says the "national control list" the treaty wants each country to maintain could be used to regulate domestic firearm ownership.

Finally, the treaty draft looks set to keep the India-sponsored "defense cooperation exemption," which would exempt arms transfers from one country to another if they had a defense arrangement (don't they all if they're trading arms with each other?) As I pointed out at the outset of this final round of negotiations, although supporters of the treaty insist its meant only to control the international trade in arms, governments' ability to exempt themselves and interpret the meaning of the treaty themselves, its far more likely to be used to regulate domestic arms transfers governments want to crack down on rather than to regulate the arms transfers of the governments themselves.

NEXT: FBI To Defend Cell Phone Tracking in Court

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Filibuster – we need anyone in the U.S. Senate who wants the votes of firearms owners to participate in a filibuster of this treaty in the U.S. Senate until it is dead and off the table for good. The treaty is not binding in our country until it passes the U.S. Senate.

    1. You won’t even need to filibuster. I treaty needs 2/3rds consent by the Senate. And a treaty cannot trump the constitution. And even if it is ratified, it needs executing legislation to have any effect.

      The UN can go fuck themselves.

      1. the AP reports UN diplomats are “virtually certain” the U.S. will accept the final draft

        AHAHAHAHA! Tell me another!

      2. “The UN can go fuck themselves.”

        That’s pretty much my response to everything they say and do (or mostly just talk about doing unless the US actually does it for them).

        1. This was pretty much my stock answer I gave my international law professor whenever he asked the class a question about the UN.

      3. ” And even if it is ratified, it needs executing legislation to have any effect.”

        It may need supplemental legislation in terms of enforcement details, but the Constitution specifies that ratified treaties are considered equivalent to federal law without the need for additional legislation.

    2. The treaty is not binding even if it does pass the senate.

  2. That revolver would have what? A 24 inch barrel? I WANT ONE!

    1. I think it would handle a 105mm HEAT round. Which would be awesome if the barrel was straightened and pointed at the UN building.

  3. If this does anything to interrupt the supply of Wolf ammo, I swear I will MURDER EVERYONE ON EARTH.

    1. That might interrupt the supply of Wolf ammo.

      1. *narrows eyes*

        1. Would you have enough Wolf ammo to shoot everyone on Earth? If so, I would humbly suggest you have about enough ammo already.

    2. I can’t even find Wolf or Tula for a decent price right now…

    3. Yeah, how else am I gonna wreck my gun with shitty russian lacquer?

    4. At least one of our local indoor ranges doesn’t even allow wolf.

    5. Stop being lazy. Make your own.

  4. How will this affect the US government’s ability to “walk” guns to Mexican cartels? You’d think the US would be against this based on how they acted when Fast & Furious broke.

    1. It won’t. They’ll just ignore it whenever it’s convenient for them to do so and selectively enforce it if it helps them keep guns out the hands of dirty “bitter clingers”.

  5. Why the fuck are we even still in the UN?

    1. The UN is to the U.S. government and its officers what the Delian League was to Athens. If officers of the U.S. government didn’t want to disarm the populace, the treaty would be dead.

      1. I hate those Delian league pussies. Peloponnesian League FTW!!!

    2. I would support my tax dollars being used to move the whole shebang to the middle of Somalia. Then see how popular it is. Without all the good restaurants, none of the Diplomats will show up, it’ll whither.

      1. Burkina Faso – I always have thought that Burkina Faso would be an ideal place for world problem-solving bureaucrats to relax and solve, well, world problems. The name of the capital is especially exotic – Ouagadougou – and should appeal to progressive progressives everywhere. And I am still waiting for Playboy to do a spread on the Girls of Burkina Faso.

    3. To protect a number of phony-bologna jobs.

      1. bologna? – Phogna bologna?

  6. I went out to the desert last weekend to do some shooting, and shot a 2lb propane tank (full) with my 9mm. Would this be the appropriate time to link to the video?

    1. Oh, God! Propane!

      /Hank Hill

    2. I’m surprised a 9mm would open a can of beans.

      1. You’ve got to stop buying those beans in armor-plated cans.

    3. Yes, yes it would.

    4. I have some bad news regarding your tank deposit.

    5. I wanna see it.

    6. How is that even a question?

      1. My brother shot the video with his iPhone. He ducked down behind the car door right as the fireball was growing, so you can’t really see how ridiculously big it got…

  7. Legal arms trading and freebooting would do a lot to discourage foreign interventions by the state.

  8. the treaty draft looks set to keep the India-sponsored “defense cooperation exemption,” which would exempt arms transfers from one country to another if they had a defense arrangement

    As Gomer Pyle might say: “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”

    I understand that India is *by far* the world’s largest arms importer.

  9. What do you expect from the “democracy of dictators”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.