UN Launches Most Aggressive Ban On
Private Firearms Ownership Since ATT
From GunMag. Feb 23, 2024
Article Source
The Second Amendment Foundation actively monitors, participates, and speaks at the United Nations' programs and meetings concerning individuals' civil right to self-defense and the means of self-defense.
Since 2007, SAF has had a seat on the Executive Committee of the World Forum for Shooting Activities (www.wfsa.net). Julianne Versnel, SAF's VP of International Outreach, serves as the Image Chair, the first woman elected to chair a committee.
The UN loves acronyms, perhaps because they can hide the real purpose of a meeting.
The most recent event was the "UN PrepCom" held at UN headquarters in New York, Feb. 12-16.
This PrepCom is the scheduled Preparatory Meeting held to set the agenda for the United Nations "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."
The following is an analysis by Versnel and Richard Patterson with Liberty's Keystone:
While discussions were largely the same that have been going on since the beginning of the Programme of Action (PoA), there are some new developments. Anti-gun groups and member states are saying they feel there is pressure to promote the private possession of firearms. This may be a result of the attacks on Ukraine and Israel which are very divisive issues but the impact of George Soros' son, Alex, taking the reins of Open Society and the rest of their Civil Society empire.
Alex is far more radical than his father. Regardless, these antigun groups/countries are pushing back hard with calls for the outright total ban of private firearms possession. While such a ban will likely not happen (at least not in foreseeable future), it increases pressure for full registration—which most developing countries, and even some western countries like Australia and Canada, are seeking.
Small and developing countries have their hands out looking for money ("assistance") from larger developed countries. Some are a polite plea for help, while others try to use guilt ('weapons made in industrialized countries are fueling our violence problem'. In other words, "you owe us").
Regarding the plurality of interventions that say guns cause/fuel violence, women and youth are disproportionately affected by firearm violence, and gender inclusion will reduce violence…These same statements are often followed by a call for more data, because there isn't enough disaggregated data to truly define the issues. Obviously, both claims cannot be true. In speaking with a delegation from a large, industrialized country and asking them about the support for their claim about gender and violence they finally admitted they had no justification other than "it sounds like the nice thing to say." Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth. Perhaps this is the biggest threat posed by the UN? It's a mouthpiece where Soros-and-company funded Civil Society can repeat their lies loud and often.
Specific to this PoA PrepCom:
There is widespread support for another Open Ended Technical Experts Group (OETEG), and this will likely proceed. "Open Ended" means everything is open for discussion.
The starting point is the marking of modular weapons and polymer frames and managing 3-D printing technology. The challenge will be keeping it focused and limited in scope and scale. Some key industrial states want a limited-duration OETEG that focuses on (as Belgium said) what to mark, where to mark it, and control of manufacture (3-D printing). Other states and Soros' Civil Society want an ongoing OETEG with a wide and wandering mandate that promotes a push for user-recognition, microstamping, storage requirements, and multiple full registration schemes.
Of particular interest to the US, the push for controls of 3-D printing—"craft" manufacturing as a whole—will run head-long into US law allowing individuals to make their own firearms without a license.* The rest of the world is flabbergasted that the US allows this.
(*The Biden administration has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to overturn the VanDerStok ruling. SAF was a successful intervenor in this case.)
"Fellowship Training Program on Small Arms and Light Weapons Control."
According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) web site, the purpose of the program is "to strengthen the technical and practical knowledge and expertise of government officials directly responsible for the implementation of the Programme of Action and the International Tracing Instrument, particularly in developing countries."
This appears to be essentially re-constituting the UN Disarmament Fellowship.
The stated goal of the old program was "the training and specialization of national officials in more Member States, particularly in the developing countries, and to enable them to participate more effectively in international deliberating and negotiating fora." The danger is this little more than an indoctrination program free for the anti-gun agenda. Having the actual agents—the "boots on the ground,"—indoctrinated into the anti-gun crusade, it will make life much more difficult for the legal business. This initiative is flying under the radar. It is difficult to get a read on how likely it is to be included in the final outcomes.
Many of the influential states continue to put an emphasis on the need for PSSM (Physical Security and Stockpile Management). So far, this remains focused on government stockpiles. There is a call from the "usual suspects" to expand this to all stockpiles. Of course, the question is "What constitutes a 'stockpile?'"
When combined with the guidance in MOSAICS, management of a stockpile is 12-foot-high concrete fences surrounding the building, concertina wire, video surveillance, and more. Does a retail store have a "stockpile" and require these draconian measures? What about personal collections at private homes?
Also Noteworthy
There were initial calls for objective and measurable criteria for any initiatives. This is a new concept for the UN, but there is not yet a widespread groundswell of support.
There is also support from different member states to keep the PoA limited in scope and scale—and not add additional terms and initiatives.
