What If The Palestinians Were "State Representatives" To UNSCAR

A post on the Volokh Conspiracy by Eugene Kontorovich from Tuesday caught my eye. He was discussing the demand of 28 US senators that funding for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change be stopped. The reason that they were demanding that US funding to this UN agency be stopped is that the Palestinian Authority has been accepted by that agency as a "state party".

Federal law bars any funding for U.N. agencies or affiliates that “grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” In the official U.S. view, “Palestine” is not a state. Thus when the Palestinian Authority joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2011, it triggered federal defunding of that organization. Now, federal law requires a similar cessation of any funding to UNFCCC.

The purpose of Professor Kontorovich's article to speculate what might happen if the Obama Administration ignored the clear law that prohibits the funding. However, for my purposes, the article made me speculate how this law could be used to cut funding of the UN's gun control efforts.

The Arms Trade Treaty is administered by UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation or UNSCAR. While the United States has not ratified the treaty, it is a signatory to it. The Arms Trade Treaty seeks to control not only major weapons systems but also small arms and ammunition. As of now, the Palestinian Authority is not considered a "state representative" to UNSCAR insofar as I can tell. That said, UNSCAR has two current projects going in the Arab and Middle Eastern states.

It would be in the interest of gun rights NGOs like the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation to lobby to get the Palestinian Authority full recognition as a state and full membership in UNSCAR. While neither organization nor its members usually have much love for the Palestinian Authority given its connections to Hamas and the PLO, getting them recognized as a state representative does cut potential funding for more international gun control efforts.

In my view, that is a good thing.

A Commemorative Day I Could Do Without

July 9th was the UN's International Small Arms Destruction Day. Who knew?

From the UN's press release:

In light of the International Small Arms Destruction Day, Kosovo destroyed over 1,700 small arms and light weapons (SALW) with support from the European Union and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Firearms and Explosives Risk Minimization (FERM) project. The objective was to raise awareness of the dangers of surplus, illegal and insufficiently secured weapons, and to increase the security and safety of people living in Kosovo.

The destruction was organized by the Kosovo Police and took place at Shkritorija, Janjevo. The arms that were destroyed were weapons that the police had confiscated during their crime investigation work.

The Minister of Internal Affairs of Kosovo, Mr. Skender Hyseni, and UNDP Deputy Resident Representative, Ms. Alessandra Roccasalvo were joined by the Deputy General Director of the Kosovo Police, Naim Rexha and Mr. Asllan Uka on a panel.

This destruction is an important element of Kosovo’s comprehensive Small Arms and Light Weapons Control Programme because it is an effective method of reducing the number of illegal weapons in the market, and reducing the potential supply of such weapons in the future. This destruction ensures that SALW will not find their way back into the illicit market and can thus build confidence in overall efforts to prevent, combat, and eradicate their illicit trade. It also contributes to decreasing the number of people who will face the similar hardships to Asllan Uka in the future.

The destruction of SALW was supported by the European Union, through the COUNCIL DECISION 2013/730/CFSP, dated 9 December 2013, in Support of SEESAC Disarmament and Arms Control Activities in South East Europe (EUSAC), in the framework of the EU Strategy to Combat the Illicit Accumulation and Trafficking of SALW and their Ammunition.

It seems the State Department stopped publicizing the day back in 2010 when Hillary Clinton was still Secretary of State. Back then, the State Department boasted that the United States had spent over $130 million to support the destruction of 1.4 million small arms and light weapons, 80,000 tons of munitions, and 32,000 ManPADS.

I'll give them the ManPADS. However, doesn't it make more economic sense to reuse some of that 80,000 tons of ammunition? I will acknowledge that some will be artillery shells but a lot of it probably was 7.62x39 ammo which could have either gone to our allies who use that round or be imported here as surplus ammo. Moreover, I would think many of the destroyed small arms could have been imported as parts kits.

Of course it made more economic sense but when has economic sense mattered to the United Nations or, for that matter, to the Obama Administration. It is the agenda and not the cost that matters.

The UN, Jesse? Really?

In an op-ed published yesterday in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called for an investigation into Trayvon Martin's death the the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He hints that the self-defense shooting of Martin may have been a violation of international law.

We need a national investigation of the racial context that led to Trayvon Martin’s slaying. Congress must act. And it’s time to call on the United Nations Human Rights Commission for an in-depth investigation of whether the U.S. is upholding its obligations under international human rights laws and treaties. Trayvon Martin’s death demands much more than a jury’s verdict on George Zimmerman. It calls for us to hear the evidence and render a verdict on the racial reality that never had its day in court at the trial.

Huh?

The sad reality is that the UN is more likely to "investigate" this that than state-sponsored atrocities happening around the world.

"United States Welcomes Opening of Arms Trade Treaty for Signature"

The headline is from a release put out by the State Department noting that the United States planned to sign the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. Maybe the vaguely French looking Secretary of State who, by the way, served in Vietnam, welcomes it along with the rest of the Obama Administration but most assuredly I don't welcome it and neither do at least 130 members of Congress.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

"As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty," the lawmakers wrote.

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.

 Kerry's statement goes on to say it won't infringe on the Second Amendment.

The ATT will not undermine the legitimate international trade in conventional weapons, interfere with national sovereignty, or infringe on the rights of American citizens, including our Second Amendment rights.

I wonder if he considers the walking of guns to Mexico in Operation Fast and Furious to have been "legitimate international trade in conventional weapons" as it certainly did interfere with the national sovereignty of Mexico. Kerry's remark that it won't infringe upon the Second Amendment does not even dignify a response.

According to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada, by the way, has not yet decided whether or not it plans to sign the Arms Trade Treaty.

The federal government hasn’t decided whether it agrees with the UN’s arms trade treaty, despite having voted to move it ahead in the first place, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Monday.

“We believe that any treaty regarding the sale of munitions that helps move the international community closer to world-leading standards is a good thing,” Baird said during question period. “We participated actively in these discussions. I think we have an obligation to listen before we act, and that is why we will be consulting with Canadians before the government takes any decision.”

The Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister went on to say that the Canadian Government sees a potential link between the ATT and their former gun registry which they abolished last year.


I think the Canadians are being a heck of a lot smarter about this than the US which doesn't surprise me in the least.

A Lump Of Coal From The UN

As a lump of coal for our Christmas stockings, the United Nations voted on Christmas Eve to restart debate on the Arms Trade Treaty.

The talks had collapsed in July when a consensus couldn't be reached. It was felt at the time that this was due in part to President Obama not wanting the ATT hung around his neck going into the fall elections. Of course, this was denied by the US delegation.

That was then and this is now. According to Reuters, the US supported the resumption of talks.

But after Obama's re-election last month, his administration joined other members of a U.N. committee in supporting the resumption of negotiations on the treaty.

That move was set in stone on Monday when the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly voted to hold a final round of negotiations on March 18-28 in New York.

The foreign ministers of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya and the United Kingdom - the countries that drafted the resolution - issued a joint statement welcoming the decision to resume negotiations on the pact.

"This was a clear sign that the vast majority of U.N. member states support a strong, balanced and effective treaty, which would set the highest possible common global standards for the international transfer of conventional arms," they said.

There were 133 votes in favor, none against and 17 abstentions. A number of countries did not attend, which U.N. diplomats said was due to the Christmas Eve holiday.

The exact voting record was not immediately available, though diplomats said the United States voted 'yes,' as it did in the U.N. disarmament committee last month. Countries that abstained from last month's vote included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Belarus, Cuba and Iran.

 The Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill says of the resumption of talks:

The move could intensify another high-profile fight between the administration, which backs the treaty, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) which says it will restrict the domestic sale of firearms.

 As I see it, we will have both a domestic and international battle on our hands in the coming months. Now, more than ever, we need to be united and to deluge Congress with letters, faxes, and emails demanding no new gun control.

SAF On UN Move

The Second Amendment Foundation which has been participating in all the United Nations conferences on small arms as an accredited non-governmental organization (NGO) released this statement today regarding the move to push the ATT forward now that Obama has been re-elected.

U.N. CELEBRATES OBAMA RE-ELECTION BY PUSHING GLOBAL GUN CONTROL For Immediate Release: 11/7/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, President Barack Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community.

The vote came at the U.N. General Assembly’s meeting of the First Committee on Disarmament at the world organization’s headquarters in New York City.

“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning, we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”

SAF Operations Director Julianne Versnel, who has been back and forth to the United Nations over this proposal, said the fight is not finished. The measure will be considered for finalization in March 2013.

“We will continue to monitor this issue and oppose any effort to enforce a global gun control measure,” she stated.

Amnesty International issued a statement Wednesday lauding passage of the resolution, saying the treaty will protect human rights.

“The right of self-defense is a human right,” Gottlieb countered, “and in this country, the Second Amendment protects that right.

“Just days ago as he campaigned for re-election,” he concluded, “Barack Obama told his supporters that voting is the ‘best revenge.’ I guess now we know what he was talking about. The revenge he seeks is against American gun owners and their Second Amendment rights.”

NRA News On Last Day Of Arms Trade Treaty Talks

Ginny Simone of NRA News interviews Tom Mason of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities about the last day of the Arms Trade Treaty talks. They discuss the speech by the State Department's Tom Countryman which said that consensus had not been found and the talks need to be continued later. In essence, the US can't agree to it...yet. They also discuss the letter from Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and 50 other senators saying they won't support the treaty.

In a later interview with Tom Mason, Ginny Simone asks about the report that Russia and Canada both indicated they can't support the treaty at this time.




H/T Weer'd Beard

CCRKBA On HR 3594 And The Arms Trade Treaty

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) is not your average Chicagoland congressman. He is actually pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment unlike many of others. Walsh spoke at the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Chicago and gave a very pro-gun speech.

This past December he introduced HR 3594, the Second Amendment Protection Act, which hits directly at proposed the Arms Trade Treaty. It would cut off all funding to the United Nations unless the president certified that the UN had not taken actions that would infringe on the rights of Americans to possess firearms and ammunition.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States may not provide any funding to the United Nations for a fiscal year unless, before the last day of the preceding fiscal year, the President makes the certification described in subsection (b).

(b) Certification- The certification described in this subsection is a certification submitted to the Congress by the President, that states that the United Nations has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict, or otherwise adversely infringe on the rights of individuals in the United States to possess a firearm or ammunition, including by imposing burdens on international commerce, or abridge any of the other constitutionally protected rights of citizens of the United States.

The bill currently has 60 co-sponsors including 26 just added recently. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms released the statement below on HR 3594 and the new sponsors.

26 NEW CO-SPONSORS TO 2A PROTECTION ACT IS ‘GOOD NEWS,’ SAYS CCRKBA

BELLEVUE, WA – Twenty-six more members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors to the Second Amendment Protection Act, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms announced today.

“This is good news,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “With a vote looming on the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, this sends a clear message to the Obama administration that the president will face real trouble if he or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signs any document that threatens our constitutionally-protected individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Sponsored by Illinois Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, H.R. 3594 was written with help from CCRKBA staff, Gottlieb noted. It now has 60 co-sponsors, and has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. CCRKBA has been urging members and supporters to contact Congress and demand action on this bill.

“The U.N. is scheduled to vote on the proposed treaty next week,” Gottlieb said. “Right now they are pushing to include small arms and ammunition, and because the Devil is always in the details, when they finally hammer out a document that the Obama administration has already indicated it will sign, this could be extremely bad for American gun owners.

“Fortunately, Congressman Walsh had the foresight to understand this,” he continued, “so he introduced this legislation to protect Second Amendment sovereignty. We want the United Nations gun grabbers, and the Obama administration to understand that they are treading in perilous waters if they adopt a treaty that even remotely threatens the firearms freedoms of our citizens.

“We are coming down to the wire on this treaty,” Gottlieb stated. “Our constitutional rights far outweigh the administration’s desire to push its ‘citizen-of-the-world’ philosophy down the throats of American gun owners. We want to see action on the Second Amendment Protection Act, and with 26 new co-sponsors, we are one step closer to achieving that goal."

Ambassador John Bolton On The ATT

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has an op-ed in today's New York Daily News on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty and why he considers it a stealth attack on gun rights in the United States.

Ostensibly, UNATT is about regulating government-to-government arms transfers or direct sales by manufacturers to foreign governments. But the hidden agenda of the gun controllers is to craft treaty language that, while seemingly innocuous, has long-range implications for the use and ownership of guns here in America.

The real danger lies in vague, ambiguous stipulations gun-control advocates could later cite as requiring further domestic restraints. In other words, they hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home.

Indeed, the theme underlying the negotiations is that the private ownership of guns is inherently dangerous.

Bolton goes on to say that strong arguments on regulating the trade in crew-served weapons such as mortars, machine guns, and shoulder-launched missiles can be made. However, he notes that the US does already regulate our international trade in these weapons through the Arms Export Control Act and they we have strong controls on the ultimate users of these weapons. That said, he doesn't think the Arms Trade Treaty will have much impact on trade in such weapons. Rogue nations and even developed nations less scrupulous than the United States (can you say Russia?) will just go around the treaty or ignore it.

He concludes his op-ed by saying:

They may have waited too long, because their current frantic efforts betray their fear that Obama could lose in November, replaced by a pro-Second Amendment Romney administration. Significantly, a bipartisan letter signed by 58 senators has already rejected any treaty that seeks, however cleverly, to impose gun-control obligations on the U.S.

The gun-control crowd’s strategy of trying to do through treaties what it cannot accomplish in America’s domestic political process is not unique to that issue.

We have seen and will undoubtedly see many more examples of frustrated statists, unable to prevail in free and open debate, seeking to take their issues global, hoping to find more sympathetic audiences.

Stopping UNATT will be one clear way to send a message that such strategies are doomed to failure.

If anyone knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the gun controllers at the UN, it would be John Bolton.

SAAMI's Statement At The Arms Trade Talks

SAAMI - the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute - delivered an official statement at the Arms Trade Treaty talks going on at the United Nations in New York. SAAMI is a registered UN non-governmental organization (NGO) with roster status. Earlier this year, they took steps to withdraw any reference of SAAMI association from the U.N. agency project to create International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) because they found the process tainted by the anti-gun forces.

Richard Patterson, Managing Director of SAAMI, delivered the following statement on Wednesday to the UN in New York. Mr. Patterson made some very good points that unfortunately will probably be ignored. I've taken the liberty of highlighting them.

Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Richard Patterson and I’m the Managing Director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, also known as SAAMI. SAAMI was created in 1926 at the request of the US government to create safety and reliability standards in the design, manufacture, transportation, storage and use of firearms, ammunition and components.

The true success of this conference requires a focus on the big picture. Guns are tools, and like any tool can be used for great good and great harm. We all know the tragedy caused by those few who choose the path of violence, regardless of the tools they use. But you must also remember that hundreds of millions of citizens regularly use firearms for the greater good. Regulated hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance with healthy ecosystems and is a major contributor to economic stability—and thereby promotes peace—in rural areas and developing countries. Target shooting has its roots in the very beginnings of civilization. This is an Olympic year, and shooting events attract the third largest number of participating nations of any sport at the Olympic Games. And people in every nation in this room—including the UN itself—use firearms to protect the law abiding and enforce peace. A well-meaning treaty that does not support the positive use of firearms is doomed to cause more harm than good. A simple step in the right direction is to focus on the fully automatic weapons of war and exclude sporting firearms.

There are some who want to see the inclusion of small arms ammunition in this treaty. As the UN’s Group of Government Experts has determined, the shear numbers involved in ammunition—the US alone produces more than 8 billion rounds of ammunition per year and there are potentially hundreds of billions of rounds in stockpiles around the world—prevent any sort of realistic marking and tracing scheme. But even if the treaty includes a general requirement for shipments, what will that do? The US has some great legal and technical points supporting their position, but let me focus for a minute on the practical side of the equation. Millions of dollars would be spent creating and implementing an export and import authorization process for ammunition. Even more money must be spent for a system of verification. As an example, let’s say a shipment of 1 ton of small arms ammunition goes through this bureaucratic process and is approved. An expensive follow-up system results in a trained inspector showing up at the intended point of delivery. The inspector sees there is far less than 1 ton of ammunition and says “Where’s the rest of the shipment?”

And the answer is “we shot it.”

Now what does the inspector do? Millions of dollars would have been wasted—diverted into a system that cannot work. This money could otherwise have been used to fight those who choose violence.

Just as you cannot be all things to all people, this treaty can’t either. Focus on the real problems, that can be managed—focus on military weapons, and avoid being distracted by topics like ammunition, which are laudable in their idealism, but completely lacking in their practicality. Be focused, be specific, and draft a treaty with precise definitions that minimize the loopholes of “creative interpretation.” This is the path to a successful Arms Trade Treaty.

Thank you.

Arms Trade Treaty Talks - Day 4

Ginny Simone of NRA News discusses Day 4 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty talks with Tom Mason of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. They discussed the organizational difficulties, the committees that will deal with the scope of the treaty as well as its preamble, the right to self defense (of the state and not the individual), and the refusal of many states to differentiate between military firearms and civilian firearms.

Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation has his summation of the day's event's here. Bromund says that Venezuela won "the crazy prize" for their rant against "imperialists":

In previous sessions, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia had all put in strong showings with speeches that were unprincipled and autocrat-friendly, but when it came to crazy, Venezuela lapped the field with a speech that will be tough to beat.

In a lengthy rant attacking the “maturity” of the assembled nations, it denounced the “imperial powers” for arming the Libyan rebels who overthrew Muammar Qadhafi, demanded that the world look seriously at controlling the “imperialists” (i.e., the U.S.) who had nuclear weapons, condemned foreign aid providers for insisting on the “downsizing” of governments, and stated that it needed arms to deal with internal threats (i.e., to continue to oppress its own population).

And They Want You To Believe In That Fairy Tale Called The UN, Too

The State Department is saying that the Arms Trade Treaty won't handicap our Second Amendment rights according to a story in TheHill.com.

“The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,” Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet.

The tweet links to a list of “redlines” the administration has established for the treaty, which aims to “establish common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms to help prevent the acquisition of arms by terrorists, criminals, and those who violate human rights or are subject to UN arms embargoes.” The United Nations is scheduled to spend all month trying to devise a treaty that all its members can agree to.

The "redlines" as published on the State Department's website include:

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
• There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
• There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
• The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
• There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
• There will be no lowering of current international standards.
• Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
• The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
• There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

Color me skeptical of both the State Department and the United Nations when it comes to arms control. As to the Second Amendment being upheld, given the prevailing opinion of many within this administration, Heller notwithstanding, that it only guarantees a collective right, this seems to me to be a throw-away for them.

The State Department also states that it is the position of the United States that the ATT include parts and components as well as a broadly defined list of armaments including "tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, military aircraft, military helicopters, naval vessels, missiles, missile launchers, small arms and light weapons, and combat support equipment." If this is the case, then you can kiss parts kits for AKs, FN-FALs, and many other former military rifles and carbines good-bye.

Arms Trade Treaty Talks - Day 1

Ginny Simone of NRA News ends the first day of the Arms Trade Treaty Talks with a recap featuring Tom Mason from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. The day was consumed with the argument of whether or not the Palestinians would be seated at the talks. For them, this is a backdoor method of trying to get recognition as a state. The United States was opposed to the seating of the PLO.

The other issue was when NGOs - non-governmental organizations - such as the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation were to speak. They had expected to speak near the end of the talks but their participation has been pushed up to this week. As Ginny notes, it looks like that they want to get the NGOs in and out so they can do whatever they want to do. Mr. Mason tends to agree with her on that.

Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation provides his take on Day 1 here.

Arms Trade Treaty Talks - Day 2

On Day 2 of the Arms Trade Treaty Talks at the United Nations, Ginny Simone of NRA News speaks with Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Bromund has been blogging these talks and his post for Day 2 can be found here.

Day 2 was mostly consumed with the Palestinians and their efforts to be seated as an observer states.

Dr. Bromund makes a very good point in this video about all the nations who are pushing for the Arms Trade Treaty. They are insisting it is needed so that the standards for buying and selling arms are raised. If that is the case, Dr. Bromund asks why do they need a treaty to raise the standards when they can do it themselves. I think we know that the issue really isn't standards but control.

Arms Trade Treaty Talks - Day 3

At the United Nations, Ginny Simone of NRA News talks to Tom Mason from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. Among the topics discussed were the seating of the Palestinian Authority as an observer, the push by Norway to include all firearms in the treaty including civilian firearms, and how the conference is totally ignoring the constitutional guarantees such as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Dr. Ted Bromund of the Heritage Foundation has more on Day 3 at his blog here. Or as he calls Day 3, "the International League of Supervillians speaks.

Reparations? Utter Nonsense From The UN

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has now weighed in on the Trayvon Martin cases and says reparations are due. Excuse me? Reparations? You have to wonder how an organization such as the UN was allowed to fall so low over the years.

Although local, state and federal inquiries have been underway for weeks, Pillay called for “an immediate investigation” into the shooting.

“Justice must be done for the victim,” she told a media briefing in Hastings, on the southern end of the Caribbean island [of Barbados]. “It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.”

“In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case. It shouldn’t be so,” Pillay continued. “The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

Pillay, a South African jurist, was appointed U.N. rights chief in 2008 and is based in Geneva, at the home of the U.N. Human Rights Council. She is a former judge at the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

According to her official bio she has masters and doctorate degrees from Harvard University in human rights and international law. I'm sure Harvard is very proud of her but one does have to wonder just exactly what she learned in Cambridge.

Satirizing The United Nations

Daniel Drezner is a Professor of International Politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is also a good satirist if his latest column in Foreign Policy is any example.

Prof. Drezner wondered how a United Nations communique regarding the Jewish Exodus from Egypt might read. Here is how he envisions the Russian response in the UN Security Council.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin delivered a blistering response, arguing that it was the radical Jewsish leaders who had escalated the situation by resorting to weapons of mass destruction and demanding that Moses be indicted by the International Criminal Court as a war criminal: "It was not the Phaaroh who imposed unspeakable sanctions against the Egyptian people. It was not the Phaaroh who slaughtered every first-born male child in Egypt -- except the Jews -- in a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions. Surely, not a house in Egypt was spared from this , this plague. It was not the Phaaroh who resorted to trickery in the Red Sea, luring innocent Egyptian troops into the kill zone before massacring them. Both sides are equally guilty in the bloodshed, and until both sides renounce violence, a peaceful solution will be nothing but a mirage of the desert."

Read the whole thing and laugh. And then begin to frown when you realize that these same clowns are trying to come up with an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate small arms and ammunition. To top it off, the Obama Administration has said they support this treaty unlike their predecessors who told the UN to pound sand as it violated our Second Amendment.

NRA Head Addresses UN Conference

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP and CEO, of the NRA addressed the UN's Preparatory Committee on the Arms Trade Treaty today. His remarks to this group are below. The gist of his remarks were that the NRA will fight tooth and nail any effort to regulate U.S. civilian firearms ownership by the UN. Moreover, he reminded them that treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and they isn't going to happen if he can help it.

I'm sure his remarks were received politely but wouldn't be that popular with the prohibitionist agenda prevalent amongst the less than democratic countries which comprise the majority of the UN's membership.

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Preparatory Committee - 3d Session
New York, July 11-15, 2011
Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The
NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed - with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is
critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I 'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is
currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

UN Meeting On Small Arms Treaty

The Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is meeting at the United Nations in New York this week. The Second Amendment Foundation is accredited to the UN as an NGO - Non-Governmental Organization - through its membership on the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Shooting Sports Activities and has people attending the meeting. I will have more on this meeting later.

The Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel, is in attendance at the Third Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in New York this week.

These meetings lay the ground work for the final negotiation sessions of the ATT in 2012. SAF’s position is firm – an ATT which in any way affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is totally unacceptable. Civilian firearms and ammunition must not be within the scope of the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty. There is no compromise on this crucial point.

The Second Amendment Foundation has been active for years at the United Nations both its headquarters in New York and Vienna, Austria and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-gun rights initiatives that would restrict our sovereignty. In addition to attending the first two preparatory meetings, SAF was represented at the May meeting of Governmental Experts where marking, tracing and record keeping policies were discussed.

SAF is a Member of the Executive Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations. This status allows us to closely monitor the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members and supporters.

This NGO status has also allowed SAF to take an active role in speaking at the UN, most recently at the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2010.

In addition to its UN and World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, SAF is a founding member of The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) which includes scores of national and international organizations, representing tens of millions of firearm and knife owners worldwide.

In March, Alan and Julianne received a commemorative muzzleloading rifle in recognition for their international work protecting the rights of gun owners presented by FISAT (the Italian shooters association), and Chiappa Firearms during the EXA exhibition in Brescia, Italy.

Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments

Today's Washington Times features an editorial about the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. They call it a threat to both the First and Second Amendments of our Constitution. Of course, they are right. The editorial follows on the heels of a report released by the Heritage Foundation on the UN and "arms control".

Theodore Bromund, one of the authors of the Heritage Foundation's report, is quoted as saying that he thinks micro-stamping will be included, that there will be some sort of gun registration and licensing system, that this licensing system will cover both guns and ammo, and that there may even be restrictions on trade between private individuals.

The Washington Times takes a dim view of the whole thing as well as the role of the Obama Administration in it.

Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual's protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush's administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.