“State Control”: What the UN Firearms Treaty Is All About

White House mouthpiece Jay Carney says that the Obama administration will “conduct a thorough review” of the UN’s newly enacted gun control pact “to determine whether to sign the treaty.” The suspense is hardly unbearable, given that the UN treaty would codify the proposition that national governments should have a monopoly on weapons.

The announced objective of the treaty is to regulate the sale and transfer of small arms and light weapons, a category that includes all civilian-owned firearms. According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the treaty “will help to keep warlords, pirates, terrorists, criminals and their like from acquiring deadly arms.”


Well, actually, it would not. Nothing in the dense and nearly unreadable text of the 15-page treaty will prevent member states from arming terrorists and criminals. Article 2, Section 3 specifies that nothing in the treaty will “apply to the international movement of conventional arms by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms remain under that State Party’s ownership.”

Article 11, which deals with “Diversion” of weaponry, requires that parties to the treaty work to “mitigate the risk” that weapons would fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists, and that they “share relevant information … on effective measures to address diversion.” But nothing in the language forbidssuch diversions from States to “non-state actors” – a point that was made, ironically, by the Communist government of North Korea when it opposed the treaty.

Each government that signs the UN gun treaty agree to create “a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition [and] munitions” (Article 3), which is described in the preamble as “the primary responsibility of all States.” The document repeatedly refers to the “inherent right” of States to arm themselves and to control the weaponry within the boundaries over which they claim jurisdiction. Not a syllable can be found in the document recognizing the innate right of the individual to armed self-defense. This omission was not accidental.

“State Control”: What the UN Firearms Treaty Is All About [continued]


A free, once–weekly e-mail round-up of liberty news, articles and activism.



  • borgteam
  • http://www.facebook.com/harvey.meltzer Harvey Meltzer

    The treaty only means more guns for the bad guys. HOW? they get the guns confiscated from all the good guys. Someone is eating strange “Mushrooms”

  • Fleendar the magnificent

    This treaty isn’t about gun control, it’s about people control. The liberals don’t hate guns, they hate people they want to control having guns.
    As for the treaty itself,if it were to pass,this would give the UN authorization and limited powers to govern the people of the United States which would be a *major* constitutional violation as our conny clearly states that no foreign entity or ruling power shall have any law creating, law placing or law enforcement powers within the CONUS. This treaty, if ratified by the US gives the UN just that. The power to enforce this treaty’s gun laws and govern us with those laws.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Blair/1362429049 George Blair

    Violence is coming.

  • Pingback: Odds 'n Sods: - SurvivalBlog.com()