The New American – by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
June 29 marked the end of the Third Review Conference (RevCon) of the United Nations’ Programme of Action (PoA) on Small Arms and Light Weapons. Delegates at the conference, including representatives of the United States, worked on producing updates to the global gun-control agreement.
According to the text of the latest draft of the agreement, the PoA will serve as an “international instrument to enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner” the small arms and light weapons that are the target of the scheme.
In practice, this means that the governments of member nations (including the United States) should create a massive, all-inclusive database of all parties that manufacture, own, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition.
If recent history is a reliable indicator of how such data would be used, after the catalog is complete, Congress could, hypothetically, pass a law (or the president would issue an executive order) compelling “voluntary” surrender of whatever privately-owned weapons, ammo, parts, and components (including reloading equipment) the UN deems “illicit.” If, after a statutorily set window, citizens don’t turn in these now-illicit items to their local law enforcement, then officers will be sent to remind violators of their responsibility under the law to disarm.
The delegates — including those from the United States — present at the PoA planning meeting have agreed to begin developing domestic legal frameworks that will provide for the “proper management of small arms and light weapons stockpiles.”
To assist member states in the implementation of the disarmament and stockpiling of the prohibited small weapons and light arms in the hands of anyone other than approved government entities, the PoA places the enforcement of the provisions “into the operational activities of United Nations peacekeeping missions.”
In other words, should the Congress and the president fail to begin seizing and stockpiling privately owned weapons “in a timely manner,” then the UN will deploy blue-helmeted peacekeeping troops to assist in the operation.
Regarding the implementation of the PoA at the national level, the final draft of the report of the latest RevCon lists six points to which all member states agreed to advance within their respective domestic governments. Here are those six commitments, taken directly from the document:
1.To establish or strengthen national laws, regulations and administrative procedures in support of the full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action.
2. To strengthen coordinated national approaches for the implementation of the Programme of Action, including, as appropriate, the establishment or designation of national coordination agencies or bodies involving relevant government agencies, including those responsible for law enforcement, border control and export and import licensing.
3. To promote the full participation and representation of women in mechanisms relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action and to encourage strong cooperation with civil society, parliamentarians, industry and the private sector.
4. To establish or designate a national point of contact to act as a liaison between States on matters relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action; and to share and update this information regularly; and to provide the point of contact with the necessary means to carry out its role.
5. To encourage the development and implementation of national action plans or other national policies in support of the implementation of the Programme of Action by making better use of existing information to improve the measurement of progress and to coordinate the development and implementation of such plans or policies, as appropriate, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including those from civil society and industry, with those relevant to target 16.4 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to the relevant United Nations resolution on women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control.
6. To significantly reduce the illicit flows of small arms and light weapons, as appropriate, through illicit weapons recovery and voluntary surrender programmes.
Anyone with even the most cursory constitutional education will be able to identify several significant problems present in this list of commitments, a list to which the United States has agreed.
First, in order to legally comply with the goal of “full and effective implementation of the Programme of Action,” the Second Amendment to the Constitution would have to be repealed. That critical provision of the Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Programme of Action, on the other hand, requires that member states do all they can to not only infringe on the right to keep and bear certain arms the UN doesn’t approve of, but on the right to buy, sell, and trade them (and the ammunition that makes them effectual), too.
Second, the agreement would require the repeal of the 10th Amendment, as it would place state governments, as well as state and local law enforcement, subject to federal and international agencies tasked with licensing weapons and controlling international borders. Placing the state governments and their resources at the mercy of the federal and international governing bodies would turn the Constitution upside down and would violate the anti-commandeering principle which holds that the federal government cannot coerce states into participating in federal programs.
Third, the appointment of a “liaison” between the federal government and the United Nations would be an extra-constitutional act that would result in the endowment of an unelected person with the “necessary means to carry out” the Programme of Action in the United States. One wonders how liberally the globocrats and the homegrown gun-grabbers would define the phrase “necessary means” in order to accomplish their shared goal of seizing weapons and ammunition from civilians.
Could this liaison call upon the General Assembly or the Security Council to send UN “peacekeepers” into the territory of one of the sovereign states of the American union charged with assisting law enforcement with the mandated registration and eventual seizure of all light weapons? While this seems far-fetched, is it really outside the realm of possibiliity for some future date?
Next, the Programme of Action calls for the domestic implementation of some system capable of using “existing information to improve the measurement of progress” of the full implementation fo the Programme of Action, including disarmament and the control of all sale, purchase, and trade of disapproved firearms.
How, do you imagine, would the progress of implementation be measured? By means of a compulsory national firearm registration? By means of tracking the manufacture and sale of ammunition from factory to end-user? Yes.
If you doubt it, consider this paragraph from the PoA agreement: “To take advantage of the opportunities that new technologies, when available, can offer for enhanced small arms and light weapons stockpile management and security, including through improved marking and record-keeping, and for the destruction of surplus small arms and light weapons that have been designated for destruction.”
Finally, there are many, many more patently unconstitutional provisions of the UN’s Programme of Action and the United States, in order to protect the Second Amendment, must refuse to negotiate with those who would see Americans disarmed and vulnerable to rule by the global plutocrats.
Right now, that seems unlikely though, as the “Working Paper Submitted by the United States” declares that “Implementation [of the PoA] must remain priority #1” and that “the United States continues to support full implementation of the PoA at the global, regional, and national levels.”
Perhaps Americans who oppose eventual disarmament by the UN and the participation of our government in that betrayal should contact President Trump and encourage him to get the United States out of the UN.
Time to get out of the UN altogether — and pronto!
O.k., Let’s get this straight….”June 29 marked the end of the Third Review Conference (RevCon) of the United Nations’ Programme of Action (PoA) on Small Arms and Light Weapons. Delegates at the conference, including representatives of the United States, worked on producing updates to the global gun-control agreement.”
READ! “… including representatives of the United States,” SO WHO MIGHT THAT BE????
That’s TRUMP, that’s who!!!
What stinking liars! What frauds! Makes me sick, that damn lying Trump….
Why are people still supporting this jerk?
Gentlemen…..prepare for war. There’s nothing to discuss here.
Tell them to hurry and lets get this party going. They are behind on the gun grabbing.
The Heritage Foundation
July 2, 2018
The Ten Dumbest Things I Heard About Guns At The United Nations
For the past two weeks, I’ve been attending the Third U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects — mercifully abbreviated as RevCon 3 for the PoA.
In theory, the purpose of the PoA — which is a political instrument, not a treaty — is to encourage cooperation on the illicit international trade in small arms. If the PoA stuck to this, it might be modestly useful. It can only be modestly useful because far too many nations at the U.N. don’t right now have the ability, or the desire, to do the basic things they have repeatedly committed to do.
Unfortunately, the PoA doesn’t stick to the illicit international trade in small arms. And in the process of not allowing it to stick to its job, its supporters say a lot of stupid things. And yes, they do like to talk about gun control. Here are the ten dumbest things I’ve heard about guns at the United Nations over the past two weeks.
Mexico’s proposal to include IEDs. Make no mistake, IEDs are a problem. But they’re not one the PoA can usefully address. Many types of IED are already illegal. Many of them are not trafficked internationally. And above all, they’re used almost exclusively by terrorists. Putting IEDs into the PoA amounts to implying that Al Qaeda should sign up to it.
Europe’s invention of new kinds of guns. You’d think there would be just two kinds of guns: ones that can fire, and ones that can’t. If you want to make a gun that can fire into one that can’t, use a torch to cut the frame (or receiver) in half. Not so, according to Europe, which for some reason doesn’t like to cut guns in half. As a result, it doesn’t have a reliable way to deactivate guns, and so now recognizes five different kinds of guns: manufactured, downgraded, converted, deactivated, and reactivated firearms. And of course, it wants new rules for all of these, with numbers put in all the parts of every firearm. In theory, this will prevent terrorist attacks like the one in Paris in 2015, which used weapons that were supposedly deactivated. In practice, it will just create confusion. The simplest thing to do is to define and number a gun by its frame (or receiver), state that the way to deactivate a gun is to cut it in half, and move on.
The worship of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals. The Goals, known as the SDGs, are a tedious laundry list of 169 separate targets, most of which are in reality merely pious aspirations or politicized goals. One of these targets is “by 2030 [to] significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows.” The PoA isn’t likely to make a major contribution to this target, but the fact that the target mentions illicit arms flows has become an excuse on the part of the Europeans and the Africans to lard the PoA with loads of references to the SDGs. The point of this is to turn the PoA into a human rights and development agreement, and, by the by, to transform it into politicized mush with no relevance to actually reducing the illicit arms trade.
Mexico’s proposal to regulate “the end user.” For years, Mexico has argued that the PoA shouldn’t simply concern itself with the international illicit arms trade, but should reach inside national borders and regulate “end users.” In the U.S., that means individual purchasers of firearms, which is precisely why Mexico wants what it wants: it’s trying to use the PoA to mandate gun control in the U.S. Mexico’s proposal is part of the PoA’s curious tendency to forget that it’s supposed to be focusing solely on the international trade, and to wade off into regulating the “end user.” The highlight of this tendency is the proposal, made in 2016 by the U.N. Secretary-General and included in a PoA draft this year, to use RFID chips to “track and document which individual has used a specific weapon, when and for how long.”
The demand to include ammunition. A lot of countries want the PoA to include ammunition. Right now, it doesn’t, and there’s a good reason for this: guns are durable, relatively easy to mark and trace, and don’t work without ammunition, whereas ammunition is consumable and is produced in enormous quantities that are impossibly burdensome to trace. The number of delegations here that can’t grasp this simple point is incredible. For the sake of the political thrill of including ammunition, they want to add an unworkable commitment to the PoA when most of the nations in the room aren’t fulfilling the much simpler ones they’ve failed to uphold for the past 17 years.
Worrying about 3-D printing and modular or polymer firearms. Apart from including ammunition, this is the big demand of a lot of nations here. They argue that 3-D printed firearms and modular or plastic firearms are scary new problems, and so the PoA needs to be updated to mention them. As the U.S. has pointed out, there is no recorded instance of a crime being committed anywhere in the world with a 3-D printed gun, and in any case, it doesn’t matter how a firearm is made or what it’s made of. As long as there’s a proper legal definition of what a firearm is, it doesn’t matter if it’s made from metal or plastic, or if — as with modular firearms — parts of it can be replaced. But too many countries here can’t bring themselves to simply define a firearm by its frame (or receiver), and fall prey to the sentiment that not including new things (such as 3-D printing) every time the PoA meets means it’s failing. In reality, the best way to ensure the PoA keeps on failing is to bloat it up like a beached whale.
Proclaiming the existence of unspecified synergies. One of the favorite talking points here is that the PoA has what are called “synergies” with a wide range of other international instruments, including the U.N. Firearms Protocol, the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the so-called International Small Arms Control Standards, and above all the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The point of referring to these “synergies” is, first, to cram a lot of things into the PoA that the U.S. doesn’t like and then, second, to cram so many references to the ATT into the PoA that the PoA becomes the agreed way to implement the legally binding ATT. In other words, it’s an effort to put all the U.N.’s small arms instruments into a pot, give them a big stir, and make them all legally binding and inseparable from each other.
Misusing ATF statistics. One of the favorite talking points of the activists — embodied by the Center for American Progress — is that an enormous percentage of crime guns recovered and traced in Mexico (70 percent) and Canada (98.5 percent) are traced back to the U.S. On its face, this is ridiculous: the idea that 985 out of every 1000 crime guns in Canada come from the U.S. is too high to be plausible. The activists get these numbers because, though they correctly cite the relevant ATF reports, they use them to imply something that’s untrue. The figure of 98.5 percent, for example, refers only to guns sent to the U.S. for tracing. In other words, the Canadian police are 98.5 percent accurate in sending probable U.S.-origin guns to the U.S. to be traced, whereas their Mexican colleagues are only 70 percent accurate. These numbers say nothing about the overall share of U.S. guns in Canadian or Mexican crime.
Whining about gender. Gender has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the control of the illicit international trade in small arms . Nor do women have any special expertise in this area simply because they are women. Nor is it true that women are uniquely burdened by the results of this illicit trade — on the contrary, most of the victims are men. (Jamaica’s figures, for example, show that in 2017 male victims outnumbered female ones by over 6 to 1.) But yet the PoA has become a vehicle for talking about gender. There has been a lengthy debate over whether the PoA should promote the “full” or the “equal” (the latter mandating one woman for every man, regardless of their expertise) involvement of women. The highlight of the gender panic was probably a speech by a left-wing NGO on Tuesday which argued that “militarised masculinity is . . . the main impediment to disarmament, peace, and gender equality.” In other words, in order to address the illicit international trade in small arms, we need to rewrite all history, society, and culture from the perspective of the progressive left. A word of advice to people who think like this: the more you say stuff like this, the more anyone who doesn’t agree with you is likely to write off all the U.N. programs you say you support as a Trojan Horse for your own radicalism.
Promoting gun control. Well, you knew it would come to this. In theory, the PoA is tightly limited to the international illicit trade. But the people who back it make no secret of their support for gun control. On Thursday, 17 nations, including Mexico, proposed including civilian possession in the PoA. Last Friday, we had a visit from Wear Orange, of Everytown for Gun Safety, financed by Michael Bloomberg. They clearly see the PoA as relevant to domestic gun control. The best illustration of why came on Wednesday, when in a side event on domestic gun control laws an Australian representative stated that “every gun shop that disappeared was a point from which guns could no longer be diverted.” In other words, according to the gun controllers, the way to control the illicit arms trade is to make sure there are no legal places to buy guns, which will ensure that no legal guns exist to become illegal. The Australian representative went on to point out that the most important source of crime guns in Australia is thefts from legal gun owners. That sums up their point of view nicely: legal gun owners should be deprived of their right to buy a gun so that, when a thief invades their house, they will not have a gun that can be stolen. Also, they will be defenseless. The problem, by this way of thinking, is not the thief: it is the law-abiding gun owner, who should be punished accordingly.
All of this isn’t just dumb. It’s pathetic. Illicit trafficking in small arms is an actual problem — not as big a problem as many problems out there, but a problem nonetheless. And there are sensible things that could be done about it, things that wouldn’t cure the problem, but which would make it better. If the PoA would just focus on these things, it might actually make a modest, but positive, contribution.
The illicit international trade in small arms basically comes down to two issues. First, there’s border control: if you don’t control your borders, it’s inevitable that a lot of guns are going to cross it. But here’s what CAP has to say about the Trump administration’s border policies in the gun control context:
The Trump administration’s protectionist, isolationist, nativist, and racist immigration policy is founded on the scurrilous notion that the United States needs to close the borders . . .
Well, if the borders are not going to be closed to illegal immigration going north, they are going to be open to illegal firearms moving south. It really is as simple as that. But try to find a progressive gun controller who admits it. Indeed, when I asked Amb. Juan Sandoval, Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico, whether he supported tight borders, he simply repeated that he was unhappy about Mexico’s murder rate. I’d be unhappy about it too, but blaming it all on the U.S. without expressing any willingness to control your own borders is totally unhelpful. In fact, it’s unfriendly.
Of course, no matter how good your border controls are, some arms are going to flow across your border illicitly. The second issue, therefore, is the need to mark firearms (both domestically-produced and imports), to maintain records of those markings, and to trace crime and other illicit weapons. This is a commitment that all nations participating in the PoA have already accepted.
But most of them don’t do it.
This piece originally appeared in Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedbromund/2018/06/28/the-ten-dumbest-things-i-heard-about-guns-at-the-united-nations/
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/the-ten-dumbest-things-i-heard-about-guns-the-united-nations
Why are we not in a hot war with MEHICO???
“…this will prevent terrorist attacks like the one in Paris in 2015, which used weapons that were supposedly deactivated. In practice, it will just create confusion. The simplest thing to do is to define and number a gun by its frame (or receiver), state that the way to deactivate a gun is to cut it in half, and move on.”
Except that this was PROVEN yet another False Flag, since the ‘terror group ISIS’ is, IN FACT, a joint US/Israeli project…..
SO WHO THEN DO YOU THINK SUPPLIED THE ‘DEACTIVATED’ WEAPONS?
siiiiiigh. Every ‘exposure’ article ALWAYS substantiates the lie of the ‘Official Narrative’
PS: I think it was LA? Recently, a cop got caught selling ‘surrendered and deactivated’ weapons from the trunk of his car?
” should the Congress and the president fail to begin seizing and stockpiling privately owned weapons “in a timely manner,” then the UN will deploy blue-helmeted peacekeeping troops to assist in the operation. ”
If, for ANY REASON, foreign forces are EVER deployed on American soil, it will be viewed as an ACT OF WAR against the People and the Bill of Rights. ANYONE, whether wearing a blue helmet or the insignia of the U.N., or any other foreign agency, and ALL THOSE WHO DOMESTICALLY PROVIDE SUPPORT to those invaders shall be deemed ENEMY COMBATANTS and will be shot on sight. There will be no trial or other due process, and no prisoners will be taken, except to be interrogated and publicly executed.
THIS IS OUR LAND, AND IT IS NOT TO BE SOLD OR ENSLAVED AT THE WHIM OF ILLEGITIMATE “GOVERNMENT” AGENTS OR BUREAUCRATS.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ”
-Preamble to The Declaration of Independence; July 4th, 1776
Come to think of it, why have we not already THROWN OFF THE DESPOTS? It is OUR RIGHT, it is OUR DUTY.
Sorry to say – but the foreign troops have already arrived and more enter your country daily.
Mexican, Honduran and Guatemalan men of fighting age crossing the southern border, then going to LA or Phoenix, hooking up with their gang banging friends and carrying arms and doing mayhem – DAILY.
On a side note – I cannot believe that the good ole US of A has signed on to the UN Gun-control Agreement and Canada did not.
. ‘To promote the full participation and representation of women in mechanisms relating to the implementation of the Programme of Action’……….
…as was done back in the day of Jenner (vaccine psychopath)
sickens me to watch the sheeple on this 4th day of July 🙁
It’s not going to happen… Not only are there are too many guns that don’t have paper trails, there are also many people that wont comply. I believe the only thing that will happen, are more gun control laws targeting buying age, types of weapons that will be “allowed” in the “civilian” market, ect or they might just target gun shops and cut off all supplies to the people. There’s not going to be a shooting war, just more political bickering and infringements.
“There’s not going to be a shooting war, just more political bickering and infringements.”
Wow, what a coincidence. This is the same propaganda the good Tories were putting out there in March, 1775.
Oh no, there will be, but I wish there wasn’t……so I can finally get some sleep!
Come get em!!!
Damn pussies!!!
Anyone remember a clause in the US Constitution about the U.N. superseding?
Or is this why they’re trying so hard to do away with it?