|
Today is the start of the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference 2006. The UN says that they do not wish to infringe on the soverignty of any nation. The NRA says that they are trying to end private ownership of firearms. Where does the truth lie? Probably somewhere in between. | The NRA | The UN | Reality | | The UN is meeting July 4. | The conferences is not to meet on July 4. | The conference meets from June 26 to July 7. July 4 shows on the agenda as a day off. | The goal of the meeting is to lead to ending private ownership of firearms worldwide. | From Fact Sheet #4: "6. Does the Programme of Action aim to curb the legal trade in small arms and light weapons?No. The PoA outlines measures to curb and eliminate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. It is the prerogative of each State to legislate the rights of its citizens to posses or bear arms." | Reference: Backgrounder Page 2 under Preventing weapons from falling into the wrong hands: "In the Programme of Action, States committed to tightening their controls over the import, export and transfers of small arms and light weapons, because without such controls it may be easy for weapons to be diverted from the legal trade into the illegal market. Improving controls over the legal trade diminishes the opportunity for weapons to fall into the wrong hands."You will read repeatedly through the materials that the UN does not wish to involve itself in the legal manufacture and ownership of firearms. What is said rarely is that the transfer of firearms is a target of UN expected action. At the very least, the UN expects each nation to end the private transfer of firearms and implement nationwide registration of all firearms. Finally, notice that the PoA does not recognize the power of the State to legislate, or the right of the people to the privacy afforded by the private transfer of firearms. | | | From The Small Arms and Light Weapons Overview, Page 15 - Issues to be Further Pursued:- International efforts to restrict the transfer and acquisition of SALW by non-State actors.
- National restrictions on private ownership of SALW designed for military purposes.
In UN parlance, the 'State' is a national government and a 'non-State actor' is a citizen. | SALW in the UN documents refer to Small Arms and Light Weapons. From the conference FAQ: “Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns.“Light weapons” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person. They include, inter alia, heavy machine guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100 millimetres.So, from the UN's own materials, it is unclear what firearms civilians would be able to own under their rules. | | | The function of the meeting is only to review progress on the PoA. | H.E. Mr. Hans Winkler of Austria, speaking for the EU said: 5. Now, five years after its adoption, we reconvene to review progress to date in implementing the Programme of Action and to further develop our strategies for the future. |
To get a feel for the sort of people representing their nations at this conference, check out coverage from New Zealand: Alpers leads anti-gun team to New York conference. The material already out is too much to analyze and keep my job. Much more will be coming. Therefore, I invite anyone who does analysis to email it to me and I will integrate it with credit. Make sure you include links to the substantiating pages. If you find yourself with more time on your hands, check out the Conventional Arms Branch of the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs. Don't be surprised if this entry is updated for the next two weeks. Update: The majority of our updates have been integrated into other articles, but I wanted to point out the presentation given by the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council. Speaking for themselves: The original purpose that led to adoption of the PoA in 2001 was preventing the devastation posed by illicit trafficking in military arms leftover from conflicts in various parts of the world. The unregulated sale and distribution of such surplus military weapons served no legitimate purpose and was to the benefit on no one, including our industry. Therefore, we have from the begining been highly supportive of measures undertaken by our government and those of other member states to implement more effective means of monitoring and regulating the worldwide trade in military small arms.More recently, however, it appears that, even though much work remains to be done implementing the original goals of the PoA, they are already in danger of being relegated to secondary importance in favor of the advancement of other agendas. Concerns that the process has shifted its focus from the control of military weapons to a much broader and - in the view of many - much more intrusive scheme concerning firearms of all types now complicate efforts to further implement the PoA. This perception is increasingly becoming an encumbrance to sustaining support for the overall program and, if not addressed, may put at risk the achievement of the original goals. The fact that much of the impetus for this change in purpose and priorities seems to come not from member governments but rather from private organizations has served further to undermine the willingness of some to support additional implementing measures.Obviously, it is not just the NRA that thinks this UN conference is about much more than the UN will admit. IANSA is probably the unmentioned 'private organization'. On June 30, they were associated with 15 presentations to the conference. Every other country and organization gave 1 or 2 presentations.
|
Written by tkdkerry on 2006-06-26 14:49:06
Thanks for the balanced viewpoint. I just hate it when those on 'our' side indulge in hysterics which only reduces their credibility. Minor point - the Thornberry link points to the Wichita Falls Times Record News in Wichita Falls, Texas, not Kansas. |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
