Here we go...our beloved UN keeping us safe.

[b]U.N. Approves Anti-gun Treaty [/b]

[i]News.com
Saturday, June 2, 2001
[/i]
The United Nations General Assembly has approved a gun control treaty that calls on all nations "to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition."
The treaty is supposed to make it easier to crack down on illegal gun trafficking by helping authorities trace the global movement of all new weapons. It must be signed and ratified by at least 40 countries before it becomes international law.

The signing period runs from July 1 through Dec. 12, 2002.

Under terms of the treaty, approved Thursday:


All new firearms would have to be marked with a serial number and the place of manufacture.

Nations would have to set up import-export licensing procedures.

Countries would also be required to keep records on all guns, parts and ammunition made within their borders for 10 years.

Nations are urged to pass laws making the illicit manufacture and sale of firearms a criminal offense.
Press reports said numerous countries have concerns about the treaty, which raises questions about whether it will ever take effect.

National Rifle Association Executive Director Wayne LaPierre was unavailable for comment Friday, according to an NRA spokesman.

However, Gun Owners of America isn't surprised at the U.N. action, according to spokesman Erich Pratt.

"This comes as no surprise because the U.N. is very much against the right of self-defense. What they are doing now in terms of tracing has not been effective in curbing crime. It has not even been effective in helping authorities find the perpetrators of crime. Anywhere you look, gun control has failed to cut crime," Pratt said.

"But one thing that gun control has been effective at," Pratt said, "is registering law-abiding gun owners, and that seems to be what this treaty is aimed at encouraging governments to do is to register gun owners and being able to track law abiding gun owners," he said.

"That, of course, concerns us very much, since, historically, registration has been a first step to confiscation of firearms," Pratt added.

Handgun Control Inc. had no comment.

unavailable for comment friday...probably because he was over wherever they did that, that it is june 2nd saturday helping them draft it.

The UN signs an anti-gun treaty, but the question is what does the United States need to do about it? How is the U.S. involved?
I can't see George Bush going along with the U.N.'s anti-gun agenda. In fact, I don't see the House of Reps or even most of the Democratic run Senate totally agreeing with the U.N. either, even though many of them are anti-gun.
I hope I am right in saying this. I kinda feel that the U.S. is going to turn their backs at the U.N. on this and not have U.S. citizens start turning in their firearms.
However, for the firearm owners in other countries in the world? I feel they are in for some bad times.
The worst for us would be restricted purchases and higher prices of foreign made firearms and ammunition. But we would be safe with U.S. made products.

If 40 countries sign....which will probably happen, then it doesn't matter what the US thinks, technically.  It will be international law.  I guess that's when the revolution starts.

Screw the U.N.

We should stop paying for this crap!

erickm -- You ought to catch the NRA infomercial that they are running across the country.  I just this moment saw it on Outdoor Life Network.  It is 30 minutes of LaPierre and Heston and interviews all trying to STOP the UN on this issue.  LaPierre in particular bashes the hell out of the UN in general and their small arms plan in particular.

As a matter of fact, there is a good chance we would not know about this were it not for the fact that the NRA is an NGO.

Get the facts.

To answer the question, no, this is not SHTF.  It does move it one step closer.  It will force a confrontation, do we stay in the UN, and abide by their treaty, or get out of the UN.  This will be interesting.

There is an article in the Summer issue of Gun News Digest about how the disarmament project in West Africa is a total disaster. This UN Development Program (UNDP) was implemented in 03/99 and has failed to meet any of it's objectives.

This creates a huge problem for the UN organization because so much press is given to UN Gun Control initiatives. The article goes on to say that this failure sheds bad light on the ability of the UN to implement even a regional, let alone a global, Gun Control initative.

You only have to look at recent history to see how successful UN efforts have been in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia. From what I've seen on the media, all the UN decides and controls is which side of a conflict they chose to protect while the parties on the other side die at the hands of those the UN is protecting.

Osama Bin Laden doesn't appear to have anymore of a problem aquiring firearms than the IRA provos or Columbian narco-terrorists to name but a few. Members of the UN like China, Iran,  and Libya feed weapons (as does the US, France GB, Brazil,Russia- to name a few) to their idea of the PC and persuasive but are part and parcel of the UN effort to disarm the general populace of other countries. Kinda causes doubt about the UN's ability to function as the benevolent organization that it is portrayed as in the general press. The only thing they could even begin to hope to control is the law-abiding citizens of countries that allow firearm ownership.

This isn't about stopping terrorism or armed conflict but about protecting and promoting an agenda of idealogues who have chosen to kowtow to the UN body and  controlling the masses that currently have access to firearms that could be percieved as being a threat to status quo of same IMO.

even if the rest of the U.N signs,which is unlikely,but entirely possible,since many major countries have banned private weapons (Australia,Japan,UK)
I have a feeling that our guys will remember the constitution and say "NO"
as for  pressure,what could the U.N. do against the U.S.?
I am not one to underestimate things,but the U.N. has had disasterous results in most of their campaigns which did not have the help of the U.S.