Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Finland has announced it will open 300 shooting ranges in a bid to encourage citizens to take a greater interest in national defence.

Monday, February 19th, 2024

A member of Finland’s defence committee said the move would help Finns improve their shooting skills in the face of increased threats from Russia.

Under the Finnish constitution, every male aged between 18 and 60 must complete national army service but the government hopes that civilians will keep their weapons skills after the period of conscription with the new range proposals.

Jukka Kopra, the Finnish politician, said: “The present government aims to increase the number of shooting ranges in Finland from roughly 600-700 up to 1,000.

Increase because of Finnish defence model
“This is because of our defence model, which benefits from people having and developing their shooting skills on their own.”

In 2023, Finland’s new Right-wing coalition agreed plans to increase the number of ranges to 1,000 nationwide by the end of the decade, as well as plans to allow diabetics to serve in the army and encourage more women to join up.

There are currently around 600 ranges in Finland, compared with 2,000 at the turn of the 21st century.

A spokesman for Finland’s defence ministry said it was working to “safeguard the activities of Finland’s shooting ranges and promote the establishment of new shooting ranges”.

In a statement to The Guardian, the spokesman added: “The environmental permit processes and legislation concerning shooting ranges will be streamlined.

“The target for the number of outdoor shooting ranges will be about 1,000 by the end of the decade. The focus will be on establishing a sufficient number of rifle and tactical ranges throughout the country.”

Brazil: Senate Moves to Challenge Socialist President’s Extreme Gun Control Decree

Thursday, July 27th, 2023

Brazilian Senator Luis Carlos Heinze introduced a bill on Monday that seeks to suspend the new “Responsible Gun Control” decree issued by radical leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last week.

Lula’s gun control decree rolls back policies implemented during the administration of former President Jair Bolsonaro. It forbids citizens from obtaining certain types of firearms, reduces the total number of firearms that a civilian can purchase, and decreases the duration of firearm permits. The decree also limits the amount of ammunition that citizens can purchase per year and imposes restrictions on shooting clubs, hunters, marksmen, and firearm collectors.

The decree also establishes a series of guidelines to transfer authority over the regulation and inspection of civilian firearms from the Brazilian army to the federal police, granting the police force exclusive power over civilian activities involving weapons and ammunition in the country alongside Brazil’s Justice and Public Security Ministry.

“That is why we will continue to fight for a disarmed country,” Lula said last week during the signing of the new decree. “It is the Brazilian police who have to be well armed, it is the Brazilian armed forces who have to be well armed.”

According to the senator, the decree “violates several constitutional and legal provisions,” while going beyond the powers attributed to the executive branch of government. The senator also argued that the decree “ignores shooting as a sporting practice” by reducing the amount of purchasable ammunition per year.

“The text transfers duties from the Army to the Federal Police, totally outside the Disarmament Statute,” Heinze said. “The Lula government is going against the wishes of the population. The 2005 referendum shows that 63.94 percent of Brazilians voted against disarmament. The popular will must be respected.”

The senator’s statements refer to a national referendum held in 2005, during Lula’s first presidential term, in which Brazilian citizens voted overwhelmingly against banning gun and ammunition sales. About 64 percent voted againt doing so, while about 36 percent supported the move.

The decree signed by Lula last week forbids civilians from legally obtaining 9mm, .40, and .45 Automatic Colt Pistols (ACP), as well as semi-automatic smoothbore firearms, overturning Bolsonaro’s policies that allowed for the sale of those types of firearms to citizens. The Brazilian government announced that it will implement a buyback program for the now banned firearms this year.

Heinze also criticized the Brazilian federal government’s attempt to disarm the population without presenting projects for public safety.

“What we have today is a Minister of Justice who is, all the time, on the platform and does not present results,” Heinze said when presenting the bill. “It is necessary to act with due seriousness.”

Reversing Bolsonaro’s flexibilization of firearm access for Brazilian citizens was one of Lula da Silva’s sterner campaign promises. In January, the radical leftist president began to roll back Bolsonaro’s gun-related policies within the first hours of his third presidential term.

Heinze’s bill accuses Lula of violating the Brazilian Disarmament Statute bt stripping the army of its regulatory functions over civilian firearms and transferring them to the Federal Police. Heinze also argued that the decree constitutes an “illegal intervention of the government in an economic activity, which generates jobs and helps in the growth of the Gross Domestic Product.”

“The ban on the sale of weapons, ammunition and supplies for reloading throughout the national territory will harm thousands of entrepreneurs, importers and the industry itself,” Heinze stated.

The Senator introduced a similar bill in January that sought to reverse Lula’s initial limitations on Bolsonaro’s gun policies.

Christian K. Caruzo is a Venezuelan writer and documents life under socialism. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Brazil: Lula tightens gun control amid surge in ownership

Monday, July 24th, 2023

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has signed an order to tighten gun controls in a bid to halt a surge in firearm ownership.

Under Lula’s far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, there was an almost seven-fold rise in registered users.

Limits will be placed on stockpiles of guns and ammunition, while certain weapons, including nine millimetre handguns, will be prohibited.

The new controls fulfil a campaign promise by Lula.

The president blamed a wave of political violence during last year’s presidential election on looser gun controls.

“We will continue to fight for fewer weapons in our country. Only the police and the army must be well-armed,” Lula said while unveiling the new stricter measures.

The announcement comes after several recent school shootings in a country that registered more than five murders per hour on average in 2022, according to the Public Security Forum, an NGO.

Brazil has almost 800,000 registered gun owners, up from less than 120,000 in 2018 when Mr Bolsonaro was elected, according to the 2023 Brazilian Yearbook of Public Security.

The country has no constitutional right to bear arms.

But under an executive decree passed by Mr Bolsonaro in 2019 Brazilians were entitled to own up to four guns, while others were granted permission to carry loaded firearms in public under certain conditions.

The decree also raised the amount of ammunition people could buy from 50 to 5,000 cartridges for permitted weapons and up to 1,000 cartridges for use in restricted weapons.

The new restrictions will see a registered hunter granted permission to own six weapons, instead of the previous 30 – including up to 15 restricted firearms.

“It is one thing for a citizen to have a gun at home for protection and assurance … but we cannot allow there to be arsenals of weapons in people’s hands,” Lula said in his speech.

Supervision of civilian weapons is being transferred from the army to Brazil’s federal police, after criticism of weak oversight.

Gun owners who bought their weapons under Mr Bolsonaro will not be forced to give them up, but a buyback program could start this year.

Mr Bolsonaro argues that guns make Brazil safer, pointing to a lower murder rate during his time in office.

The former president has been barred from running for office for eight years after being found guilty of abusing his power ahead of last year’s presidential poll.

He had been accused of undermining Brazilian democracy by falsely claiming that the electronic ballots used were vulnerable to hacking and fraud.

The bitterly fought election went into a run-off on 30 October and was won by a narrow margin by Lula.

Mr Bolsonaro never publicly acknowledged his defeat and left Brazil for Florida two days before Lula was sworn in as president.

The former president’s supporters, who refused to accept the outcome of the election, stormed Brazil’s Congress, the presidential palace and the building housing the Supreme Court on 8 January.

Gun ownership went up. Killings went down. Brazil debates why.

Friday, December 23rd, 2022

BALNEÁRIO CAMBORIÚ, Brazil — Take away the açaí smoothies and the skewers of barbecued Brazilian meat and the four-day Texas ExpoTiro herecould be a gun show anywhere in the United States.

Firearms dealers from all over the world have rented booths to market Glock pistols and AR-15s, and gun rights advocates are offering lectures on how to confront violent urban crime.

“This is a triumph of liberty!” said retired military police chief Marcelo Venera, the executive director of the two-year-old expo, the largest gun show in the country and the first open to civilians. “We are here to show that we are good people and there is nothing wrong with loving guns!”

The gun owners of Brazil are proclaiming victory these days. Private gun ownership, once tightly restricted in Latin America’s largest country, has grown at least sixfold in the four years since President Jair Bolsonaro began relaxing the rules.

What’s more, gun enthusiasts say, it’s working: The homicide rate in Brazil — one of the world’s most violent countries — has fallen more than 27 percent since 2017.

“Everyone said there would be more homicides when Bolsonaro loosened the restrictions,” said Paulo da Silva, 25, attending the gun show with friends. “But it turned out to be the opposite!”

Not so fast, criminologists say. They’ve spent the past four years trying to understand the unexpected decline — and say it has little to do with Bolsonaro or his decrees.

Private gun ownership still remains tightly restricted in Brazil, as compared with the United States, and the majority of the population says civilians should not be allowed to own firearms. But the changes here have fueled a new debate over the benefits and harms of allowing more access.

Research consistently shows that when private gun ownership goes up, killings follow. Analysts say it’s too early to draw conclusions from what they’re calling a global test case for what happens when strict gun rules are suddenly lifted. But many say the drop here has more to do with organized-crime trends, investment in policing and demographics.

Much violent crime in Brazil, and homicides in particular, stems from turf battles between the well-armed drug cartels that control favelas, or slums, throughout the country. The victims are predominantly poor young men of color. In 2017, a major war between the country’s two biggest cartels drovegun-related homicides to record levels.

But since then, conflict between First Capital Command and Red Command has calmed considerably, said Roberto Uchôa, a former federal police officer and member of the Brazilian Public Security Forum. First Capital Command now dominates São Paulo, Brazil’s most populous state. In Rio de Janeiro, Red Command now clashes mostly with militias run by police, not rival gangs. As a result, the country’s northeast, ground zero for the groups’ 2017 war for new territory, has quieted.

Bolsonaro has also reaped the benefits of a decade of investment in policing, said Isabel Figueiredo, also a member of the Brazilian Public Security Forum, a nonprofit research group that has advocated for tougher gun laws. Presidents Dilma Rousseff and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva professionalized local police forces and improved data collection and training, leading to a steady drop in homicides in several states. Lula, who was president from 2003 to 2010, defeated Bolsonaro in October to win a third term; he takes office in January.

Brazil’s aging population is also a factor, analysts said. Roughly half of homicide victims here are between 12 and 29 years old. A decade ago, that age group represented 31 percent of the population. Today it represents roughly 27 percent. There’s no comprehensive data on the age of perpetrators, but criminologists say victims and perpetrators tend to be the same age. Demographically, older Brazilians are aging out of crime faster than younger ones are aging in.

In the United States, decades of research has found a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, suicides, accidental shootings and shootings by law enforcement. Every 1 percent increase in firearm ownership is associated with a 0.6 percent increase in overall homicide rates and a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rates, according to Daniel W. Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of its Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Gun ownership in Brazil is far more limited than in the United States, where there’s more than one gun per person. In Brazil, there are more than 48 people per gun.

Still fewer Brazilians are allowed to carry guns outside the home. Violence is linked more closely to carrying than to ownership.

Webster called the belief that arming more civilians makes society safer “a fantasy that is put forward by the gun lobby” — and is not grounded in any data.

The Brazilian Public Security Forum found that 6,000 deaths could have been prevented if Bolsonaro had not made guns more accessible.

The Instituto Sou da Paz, a Sao Paulo-based nongovernmental organization that advocates for gun control, notes that school shootings, still rare here, have become more frequent since 2019. Of the 12 school shootings here since 2002, five have occurred in the past four years.

Suicides are up 29 percent since 2017, according to public data; Figueiredo and other analysts here believe this is related to the spike in gun ownership. Brazil does not compile data on accidental shootings or shootingsby law enforcement.

“This drop in homicides is really, really big,” Figueiredo said. “But it has nothing to do with Bolsonaro’s policies. If anything, his policies have cost thousands of lives.”

At Texas ExpoTiro —Venera says he and his wife named the gun show for America’s “most gun-loving state” — the firearm fans see it differently. The conservative southern state of Santa Catarina is Bolsonaro country; it delivered the third-highest percentage of votes for the incumbent in the October election.

In another echo of the United States, many here claim that the electionwas “stolen” and that Lula is a criminal who won’t actually assume the presidency on Jan. 1.

Andin a country where police cannot always be trusted to respond effectively, Santa Catarina is also a place where people say they believe they should be able to take personal safety into their own hands. Gun rights advocates, including Bolsonaro himself, say reducing controls on guns has turned Brazil into a far safer place for its 215 million citizens. Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo made the argument this year in a speech at a gun show in California, evidence of growing ties between right-wing movements in the two countries.

“What’s happened with firearms is the same as what happened with the microwave oven,” said Juliana Lopes, a military police major and shooting instructor. “It entered people’s homes … and has become a survival tool.”

Since Bolsonaro took office, the number of shooting clubs here has doubled to more than 2,000. A new lobbying group modeled on the National Rifle Association just got its president elected to Congress. Online, an emerging generation of gun rights influencers has garnered hundreds of thousands of followers. The stock price of Taurus, Brazil’s largest gun manufacturer, went up 200 percent.

Lula’s advisers have said he plans to reverse many of Bolsonaro’s decrees. But they have also acknowledged that once you recognize rights, it is difficult to take them away.

Paulo Bonoso attended the gun show with his wife, Erika, and friends. Seven or eight years ago, the 43-year-old oceanographer said, he was opposed to civilians owning guns. He said Brazilians had been “brainwashed” into hating guns — evensales of realistic-looking toy guns, he noted, are banned.

Then he started to “open” his mind, he said, reading the writings of conservative Brazilian philosopher and self-defense advocate Olavo de Carvalho and questioning conventional wisdom. He became interested in getting a firearm. But before Bolsonaro, he said, it was “too much of a hassle” to buy one.

Bolsonaro’s changes, delivered in nearly three dozen presidential decrees, included reducing taxes on imported weapons, allowing civilians to purchase assault rifles and increasing the number of firearms registered sport shooters could own from 16 to 60.

He also dropped a rule requiring would-be purchasers to justify their need for a firearm to their local police department. Previously, a civilian who wanted to buy a gun needed to submit an application that substantiated their personal level of risk — describing in detail whether they lived in a condominium complex with a doorman or a secure gate, for example. Police had wide discretion on whether to grant or deny the license.

“You could go through this exhausting and expensive process, only to hear a ‘no’ at the end of it,” Bonoso said. “Because some sheriff decided your home was too safe.”

In 2020, Paulo, Erika and their two school-age sons moved from Rio Janeiro, where they say Erika was robbed 16 times, to a familybeach house in Santa Catarina. They began to buy guns — a Taurus revolver, pistol and shotgun and a Glock G17 semiautomatic for him; a Taurus G2C pistol and a couple of revolvers for her. They were planning to buy an AR-15, T4 or other type of semiautomatic when the Brazilian government blocked sales of semiautomatic weapons in September, citing heightened risk during the election period.

Several expo attendees said they needed a gun because they live in a rural area where the police presence is minimal. Others said they just like them. In a region populated by many people of German descent, they said, guns have long been part of the local culture. Lula, they said, suppressed the will of the people when he tried to prohibit civilians from owning guns entirely in 2005. He didn’t get thefull ban, but lawmakers ended up passing some of the most stringent gun regulations in the world.

Many said they admire the gun culture of the United States — the expo even included a talk on guns in Texas delivered by a member of the Houston-based Brazil-Texas Chamber of Commerce.

Still, a dozen people interviewed at the gun show by The Washington Post said they appreciated that Brazil continues to place far more restrictions on would-be buyers than the United States does. Brazilians must show proof of income and a residence where the firearms must be located. They must undergo a basic psychological evaluation and register with the police and a shooting club.

Brazilians still have more restrictions on carrying guns outside the home. Gun owners are allowed to carry a gun only if they are on their way to a shooting club. Webster said gun homicides and accidental deaths in the United States are tied more closely to carrying than to possession.

Another key difference: Guns are roughly three times as expensive in Brazil as in the United States, which makes private ownership primarily an enthusiasm of people with higher incomes.

U.S. citizens owned more than 393 million firearms in 2018,or 1.2 per person,according to the Small Arms Survey, a Geneva-based research organization. Brazilians owned 4.4 million in 2021, or 0.02 per person, according to the Security Forum.

The United States has a much more“developed” gun culture than Brazil, Venera said. Brazilians aren’t ready to drop the restrictions altogether, he said, but he hopes they will be soon: “You just can’t give a car to someone who can’t drive.”

Venera is not concerned that legal gun sales will help arm the cartels. Criminals have always had guns, he said, and they prefer automatic weapons. “Only civilians couldn’t defend themselves,” he said.

The Instituto Sou da Paz reported this year that most of the 33,000 firearms used in crimes in São Paulo state between 2011 and 2020 were purchased legally. Uchôa says that drug traffickers do generally prefer fully automatic weapons, which remain illegal here, but that street criminals tend to use revolvers and handguns because they are easier to conceal.

The flowering of gun culture here has prompted the Bonosos to open a shooting club in their small beach town of Imbituba. Inspired by the American West, they are calling the club Comanche, after the Native American tribe of the southern Great Plains. The club is set to open next month, at the same time as Lula’s inauguration.

But now, after 18 months preparing for the launch, they worry that the new president will clamp down again.

“We could lose our rights and be sent back to zero,” he said.

Germany to tighten gun laws after suspected coup plot, interior minister says

Monday, December 12th, 2022

BERLIN, Dec 11 (Reuters) – Germany plans to tighten its gun laws in the wake of a suspected plot by a far-right group to violently overthrow the government and install a minor royal as national leader, its interior minister said in an interview published on Sunday.

German police last week arrested 25 people suspected of involvement in the plot, which has shocked many in one of Europe’s most stable democracies.

Prosecutors allege that many of the suspects were members of the “Reichsbuerger” (Citizens of the Reich) movement, which does not believe in the existence of the modern German state, according to prosecutors.

Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, in an interview with “Bild am Sonntag” newspaper, warned that the Reichsbuerger represented a rising threat to Germany given it had expanded by 2,000 to 23,000 people in the past year.

“These are not harmless crazy people but suspected terrorists who are now sitting in pre-trial detention,” Faeser was quoted as saying.

Prosecutors have said the suspects included individuals with weapons and knowledge of how to use them. They had attempted to recruit current and former army members and had stockpiled weapons.

“We need all authorities to exert maximum pressure” to remove their weapons, Faeser was quoted as saying, which was why the government would “shortly further tighten gun laws”.

Prior to the raids, authorities had already confiscated weapons from more than 1,000 Reichsbuerger members. However, at least another 500 are still believed to hold gun licenses in a country where the private possession of firearms is rare.

The fact senior civil service members – such as former lawmaker and Berlin judge Birgit Malsack-Winkemann – were among those arrested on suspicion of plotting has particularly shaken many in Germany.

Jochen Lober, the lawyer who defended her in a legal case in October where the Berlin government tried to force her to retire as judge, declined to comment on her arrest.

The Berlin branch of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, of which she is a member, said it did not know which lawyer was representing her and could not comment on her specific case until the investigation yielded results.

The interior ministry also wants to tighten disciplinary procedure for civil service members so it can more quickly fire them or withdraw their pension in the case of serious misconduct, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. At the moment such procedures can last for years.

ÉTATS-UNIS: LE LOBBY DES ARMES LOUE UN “HÉROS” QUI A ABATTU UN TIREUR DANS UN CENTRE COMMERCIAL

Tuesday, July 19th, 2022

Un jeune américain a tué dimanche un homme de 30 ans et un couple attablé dans un espace de restauration et fait deux blessés, avant d’être abattu parun client de 22 ans qui portait un pistolet sans permis comme l’y autorise depuis peu la loi locale.

Le lobby américain des armes a salué lundi les actes “héroïques” d’un civil qui, avec son pistolet, a abattu un tueur dans un centre commercial, s’emparant de cet événement pour promouvoir sa cause en dépit des statistiques montrant les effets dévastateurs de la prolifération des armes à feu.

Dimanche soir, Jonathan Sapirman, un jeune homme de 20 ans dont le mobile reste inconnu, a ouvert le feu avec un fusil semi-automatique dans les travées d’une galerie commerciale de l’Indiana.

Une histoire récupérée par le puissant lobby NRA

Il a tué un homme de 30 ans et un couple attablé dans un espace de restauration et fait deux blessés, avant d’être abattu par Elisjsha Dicken, un client de 22 ans qui portait un pistolet sans permis comme l’y autorise depuis peu la loi locale.

“Beaucoup plus de gens seraient morts la nuit dernière si ce citoyen armé et responsable n’avait pas réagi très vite, deux minutes après les premiers tirs”, a déclaré le chef de la police de Greenwood, James Ison, lors d’une conférence de presse.

Le tireur, qui semble avoir préparé ses actes puisqu’il a noyé son téléphone dans les toilettes et brûlé son ordinateur dans un four avant de passer à l’acte, disposait en effet d’un second fusil d’assaut, d’un pistolet et de nombreuses munitions, a-t-il révélé.

Le puissant lobby National Rifle Association (NRA) s’est immédiatement saisi de ce drame pour réaffirmer qu’armer la population était bon pour la sécurité publique. “Nous le redisons: la seule façon d’arrêter une mauvaise personne armée est d’armer une bonne personne”, a-t-il tweeté.

Le serpent de mer des armes à feu aux États-Unis

Une autre association de défense du droit au port d’armes, le CCRKBA, a repris le même credo: “Nous portons des armes pour nous défendre et défendre les autres face aux criminels et aux fous”, a déclaré son patron Alan Gottlieb dans un communiqué.

“Soyons clairs: si les armes renforçaient notre sécurité, l’Amérique serait le pays le plus sûr au monde”, a rétorqué Kris Brown, présidente de l’association Brady Campaign, qui milite pour un meilleur encadrement des armes à feu.

Dans la même veine, Shannon Watts, fondatrice de l’organisation Moms Demand Action, a reproduit des graphiques plaçant les Etats-Unis en tête des pays développés en termes d’armes par habitant mais aussi de morts par arme à feu.

Plus d’armes en circulation que de personnes aux États-Unis

Près de 400 millions d’armes étaient en circulation dans la population civile aux Etats-Unis en 2017, soit 120 armes pour 100 personnes, selon le projet Small Arms Survey.

Plus de 24.000 personnes ont été tuées par balle depuis le début de l’année, dont 13.000 par suicide, d’après le site Gun Violence Archive, qui a recensé sur la période 354 fusillades ayant fait au moins quatre victimes.SUR LE MÊME SUJET

Plusieurs d’entre elles, dans une école du Texas ou un supermarché fréquenté par des Afro-Américains, ont particulièrement choqué le pays, dont les élus ont, pour la première fois en 30 ans, réussi à s’entendre en juin sur une – modeste – réforme des lois sur les armes.

H.G. avec AFP

SAF Urges Support of Ukrainian Gun Owners

Monday, February 28th, 2022

“The whole world is watching, but gun owners around the world can actually be helping,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “We’re calling on our fellow gun owners and rights activists to support Zbroya, the Ukranian Gun Owners Association (UGOA).

UGOA is a member organization of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights(IAPCAR), which SAF spearheaded and helped organize more than a decade ago. Now, more than ever, gun owners in Ukraine are in dire need of support, because civilian arms rights has never been more important in that nation.

“Our brother and sister gun owners in the Ukraine are fighting for their lives,” Gottlieb said, “and now is the time for gun owners across the country and around the world to step up and help them in their hour of need.”

Contributions may be made directly to UGOA by visiting the Zbroya page at the IAPCAR website, Gottlieb noted. Open the page and in the upper right hand corner, click on the red “Donate” icon, and follow instructions.

“When IAPCAR was founded,” Gottlieb recalled, “we stressed the importance of civilian arms rights because when a nation is threatened with its very existence, responsibility for that nation’s defense invariably falls to the people, the patriots willing to take up arms and stand on the front lines of freedom.

“If anyone wonders why the right to keep and bear arms is so important,” he observed, “they only need to watch the evening news for the answer. More than 200 years ago, our fledgling nation had to fight for its very existence. Times have changed, but for the people of Ukraine, the circumstances are very much the same. This young nation is battling raw aggression, and that fight involves our fellow gun owners. It’s time to do more than just sit and watch this tragedy unfold on television. Help us help our friends and allies in Ukraine.”

Donations may be made here.

Czechs To Allow Gun Ownership For Self-Defense

Thursday, July 22nd, 2021

By Tom Knighton

In far too many places and far too many minds, self-defense isn’t a valid reason to own a gun. Hunting is apparently fine, but defending yourself against a predator? Not so much.

This thinking is especially common in Europe, where gun ownership is heavily restricted. I mean, as bad as we think Massachusetts or New Jersey is, Europe has it worse.

Yet in the Czech Republic, they’re at least accepting that self-defense is a valid reason to want to own a gun.

Prague, Jul 21 (EFE).- The Czech Parliament approved Wednesday a constitutional amendment recognizing the right to use arms in self-defense and to protect others, bucking the trend of stricter gun regulation in the European Union, CT24 television reported.

The upper house ratified the new article of the constitution, which had already passed the lower house.

The amendment states that “the right to defend one’s life or the life of others, even with the use of weapons, is guaranteed.”

This runs counter to the anti-gun rights push we’ve seen in much of the rest of the European Union.

It should also be noted that unlike much of Europe, the Czech Republic has a concealed carry permit system in place. While the country requires licenses to possess a firearm, they actually issue those licenses to some as young as 15 (not the concealed carry license, though). It’s actually not bad by European standards.

Now, let’s be clear. While I applaud the Czech Republic for this move, they still really have a lot of work left to do. Requiring licenses, for example, is ridiculous. It’s damn sure nothing any gun rights supporter in the US would tolerate, that’s for sure.

But this isn’t the United States.

For Europe, this is huge. Understanding that the right to self-defense is an inherent right of all human beings is absolutely an essential step in recognizing the inherent right for all human beings to keep and bear arms. What the Czech Republic is doing here is potentially laying a foundation that can be built upon.

The biggest obstacle they’ll face is the European Union, which doesn’t permit member states to have true gun rights recognition. Nations like the Czech Republic would need to leave the Union in order to do that.

However, it sounds like they’re already bumping up to the imposed limits and may keep pushing. That’s a very good thing, of course, and the European Union could use a good wake-up call on this.

Crime doesn’t stop because you take away a tool the bad guys like. At most, you force them to use a different tool.

In the process, though, you take away what may be the only tool their potential victims could potentially use to protect themselves. Maybe the Czech Republic can push the rest of Europe to wake the hell up and recognize that gun rights are human rights.

Then again, the European Union hasn’t really shown me that they actually respect any real, fundamental human right to speak of, so why would this be any different?

Biden considera endurecer el control de armas tras dos últimos tiroteos

Wednesday, March 24th, 2021

Una acción ejecutiva para endurecer el control de armas pudiera ser ejecutada por la administración estadounidense a raíz de dos tiroteos ocurridos en días recientes. Desde la Casa Blanca aseguran que el tema está en discusión, aunque no hay fecha concreta de la puesta en marcha.

«Eso ha estado en discusión y seguirá estando en discusión», fue la afirmación hecha a los medios por la portavoz de la Casa Blanca, Jen Psaki. Enmarcado en los planes de la nueva administración, desde la Cámara de Representantes aprobaron a mediados de marzo dos proyectos de ley destinados a fortalecer las leyes de armas. Ahora estas deberán pasar por el Senado.

Uno de los proyectos amplía el período de verificaciones de antecedentes, de 3 días a 20. La modificación surgió porque la ley actual, estipula que la venta de armas puede continuar si una verificación de antecedentes demora más de tres días.

Joe Biden se pronunció después del tiroteo —en un supermercado de Colorado— que dejó 10 muertos., entre ellos, un agente de policía. Aún se desconocen los motivos del tiroteo y las autoridades ya supervisaron la casa del sospechoso, según el reporte de France 24. Esto reforzó la idea de la Casa Blanca para considerar nuevas medidas.

¿Control o más derechos de armas?

Expertos en el tema indicaron a Fox News que Biden podría endurecer el control de armas sin necesidad de acudir al Congreso, usando su autoridad para limitar el comercio.

El presidente de EEUU podría recurrir a esta medida si el arma de fuego, el cargador o la munición se están importando, dijo a ese medio Alan Gottlieb, fundador de la Fundación de la Segunda Enmienda.

Las últimas medidas tomadas desde el Congreso han recibido el respaldo parcial de la bancada republicana. Ocho republicanos de la Cámara baja respaldaron el segundo proyecto de ley que ampliaría los requisitos de verificación de antecedentes a las armas compradas a través de Internet, en ferias de armas o mediante otras transacciones privadas.

Pero también surgen voces detractores. Por ejemplo, la Asociación Nacional del Rifle denunció la acción de la Cámara al aprobar los proyectos, defendiendo que deberían aprobarse medidas de derechos de armas, de acuerdo al portal NPR.

«Estos proyectos de ley son un intento transparente de los defensores del control de armas en el Congreso para restringir los derechos de los estadounidenses respetuosos de la ley con el pretexto de abordar la cultura criminal violenta en Estados Unidos», afirmó Jason Ouimet, directivo de la asociación.

Incidentes en Colorado y Atlanta

El tiroteo en Colorado ocurrió en un supermercado de Boulder. Las autoridades rodearon el supermercado media hora después de los primeros disparos, buscando comunicarse con el atacante. Posteriormente se lo llevaron esposado.

En Atlanta había ocurrido otro incidente seis días antes. Ocho personas murieron cuando un hombre abrió fuego en un negocios de masajes. El sospechoso fue detenido a unos 240 kilómetros al sur de Atlanta, pocas horas después de los tiroteos, señaló el informe de The New York Times.

El asunto de las armas cobra más fuerza en Estados Unidos dado estos últimos hechos. Dependerá del gobierno estadounidense decidir cómo manejarlo, tomando en cuenta los argumentos alrededor del escabroso tema.

Portuguese Gun Rights Group Joins Growing International Coalition Against Gun Control

Tuesday, May 7th, 2019

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) announced today that Portuguese gun rights group Associação Nacional da Arma de Portugal (ANARMA) have joined the international coalition of 33 associations in 23 countries dedicated to defending civilian firearms rights.
ANARMA’s membership in the civilian arms rights coalition expands the European membership to twelve groups from ten different EU and non-EU countries.
“We’re on the side of everyday people in all countries that wish to exercise their right to use firearms for legitimate purposes, including self-defense,” The Second Amendment Foundation’s founder Alan Gottlieb who serves as IAPCAR’s President said. “We’re very pleased to have ANARMA as our newest ally in the fight against extremist groups and individuals attempting to diminish firearms and self-defense rights.”
Blake Jardim, ANARMA’s President recently issued a statement about his organization joining IAPCAR.
“As a Portuguese gun rights association, we are very proud to be a member-association of IAPCAR due to its long history of being a staunch defender of the right to keep and bear arms throughout the world. We shall stand side by side with other national associations in order to effectively oppose all anti-gun legislation that may be proposed by transnational bodies such as the United Nations or the European Union.”
IAPCAR and its affiliates have opposed restrictive EU firearms regulations. They have organized tens of thousands of individuals across Europe in opposition to the new restrictions.
IAPCAR Director Julianne Versnel, who is also the Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Operations, has submitted testimony as well as testified at the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) meetings objecting to the exclusion of civilian arms rights from the ATT. “Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” Versnel told the delegates.
The IAPCAR civilian arms rights coalition is focused on opposition to the ATT, which has passed the U.N. General Assembly and was made available for countries to sign on. The ATT does not acknowledge or protect civilian arms rights or recognize the right to self-defense in its enforceable language.
The United States just withdrew from the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty with was never ratified by the United States Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Gun control advocates warn ‘chain reaction’ eroding Howard’s gun laws

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

John Howard’s gun laws are collapsing, gun control advocates say, as they compile a stocktake on states and territories’ compliance with the National Firearms Agreement.

The agreement — which is non-binding, and underpinned by state and territory firearms laws — was negotiated by the then prime minister in 1996 after 35 people died in the Port Arthur massacre.

Preliminary findings from Gun Control Australia’s report on the issue indicate a “chain reaction” has been speeding up since 2008. The organisation’s chair, Samantha Lee, told the ABC that changes often began with gun lobby wins in NSW.

“As one of the bigger states passes laws to water down their legislation, the other states are following suit … the result being, our national approach to gun control is eroding,” Ms Lee said.

The audit is set to be released next month, and comes as states and territories are moving to implement an update of the agreement signed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) last December.
The main outcome of that review was tougher restrictions on lever-action shotguns, after an uproar about the arrival of a new weapon, the Turkish-made Adler A110.
The Adler came in 5- and 7-shot versions, with the latter banned for import by federal justice minister Michael Keenan in 2015.
Shooters were outraged at the ban, believing there was no new technology in the Adler, and no evidence that lever-action shotguns were being used in crime.

Backlash against Adler ban threatens revised national deal

The backlash from shooters has been so strong that some states and territories may baulk at implementing the revised national agreement. So far, only NSW and the ACT have implemented it.

Coalition governments have fractured over the ban, with several federal National Party MPs supporting a disallowance motion by Senator David Leyonhjelm in November, and Liberal MLC Peter Phelps crossing the floor when the enabling legislation reached the NSW Parliament in May.

NSW Police Minister Troy Grant took a public stand against the tougher restrictions until he resigned as deputy premier late last year, at which point NSW fell into line with other states and signed up to the revised agreement.

Mr Grant said at the time that he was standing up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and did not believe there was any evidence that lever-action shotguns were more dangerous than other weapons available to recreational shooters.

But Background Briefing can reveal that before his resignation, he received — and then overrode — confidential advice about the contentious laws from his own police force.

The heavily redacted advice, signed off by the NSW Police Firearms Registry and obtained under freedom of information laws by NSW Greens justice spokesperson David Shoebridge, says that improved technology means that lever-action shotguns “are now similar, in terms of their rapidity, to pump-action shotguns”.

Pump-action shotguns are highly restricted under the National Firearms Agreement.

Although the document did not make any recommendation, Mr Shoebridge said the clear implication of the expert police opinion was that circulation of lever-action shotguns should be just as restricted.

Queensland MP Katter vows to block new agreement

In Queensland, pro-gun state MP Robbie Katter has vowed to move a disallowance motion against any legislation implementing the revised agreement and giving effect to the Adler ban.

The member for Mount Isa — who shares the balance of power in Queensland — said the ban was political opportunism by the Federal Government.

“If it wasn’t so serious,” Mr Katter said, “it would be laughable that you’re going to cut bloody farmers down from seven shots to five shots when you’re shooting pigs, that that’s going to make people safe in the cities.”

Mr Katter’s tactic threatens to further fragment the national gun laws.

Ms Lee from Gun Control Australia said gun politics were especially fraught in Queensland, where firearms laws were weakened in 2012 by the conservative Newman government.

“The gun lobby had the ear of [then premier] Campbell Newman,” she said.

“He set up an advisory council up there just stacked with gun lobby advocates, and he said that he was pushing to get rid of red tape, but how we see it is that he’s actually really significantly watered down gun laws in Queensland.”

We’ll see what it means for public safety: Leyonhjelm

Senator Leyonhjelm, a pro-gun Liberal Democrat, said he believed it was likely that Queensland would not follow through with the revised agreement.

He told the ABC he would be “perfectly happy” if Australia went back to the situation before 1996, when the national gun laws were introduced.

“If, as a result of Queensland not signing up to this COAG agreement regarding lever-action shotguns, because of that, the National Firearms Agreement starts to lose relevance, all it will do is take us back to situation that applied 20 years ago when the states did their own things,” he said.

“What we will see is some states taking a fairly strong approach and some states taking a less strong approach, and we will see what the result is in terms of public safety.

“My view is we will see no difference between them in public safety because I think in the context of the gun laws in Australia gun control laws and gun violence are independent variables … they are not related.”

Joyce criticised for tweet on massacre anniversary

Ms Lee said pressure from an ascendant gun lobby had been having an effect on the National Party in particular.

She pointed to a tweet by then acting prime minister Barnaby Joyce, who wanted the 5-shot Adler to remain available for recreational shooters, on April 28, 2017 — the 21st anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre.

The tweet shows a meeting two days earlier with Robert Nioa, whose company imports the Adler into Australia.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-11/gun-control-advocates-warn-chain-reaction-eroding-national-deal/8793890

Car plows into pizzeria near Paris, killing 12-year-old girl

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

A car plowed into the outdoor terrace of a pizzeria in the small town of Sept-Sorts east of Paris on Monday, killing a 12-year-old girl and seriously injuring several other people.

The driver deliberately targeted the diners, said a local prosecutor who announced he was ruling out terrorism and opening a murder investigation.

“There is no doubt that he voluntarily decided to create what happened,” prosecutor Eric de Valroger told reporters at the scene of the incident.

No weapon was found in the vehicle, the prosecutor added.

Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told Reuters the driver was a “depressive” aged 32 and described him as an unstable character.

The incident occurred on a warm summer’s evening on the eve of a national holiday and witnesses said the outdoor eating area was busy.

A photograph published on social media showed a gray BMW car surrounded by upturned tables in the outdoor seating area of a restaurant. Reuters could not immediately verify the authenticity of the image.

Brandet said five victims were being treated in hospital for life-threatening injuries. Eight others suffered minor injuries and seven were treated for shock.

“Everyone on the terrace was hit,” one witness told BFM TV.

A police source said the driver lived in a neighboring village to Sept-Sorts, about 41 km (25.6 miles) to the east of Paris, and had tried to commit suicide on Sunday.

The incident occurred less than a week after an Algerian national was arrested on suspicion of deliberately ramming a hire car into a group of soldiers on a patrol in the Paris suburb of Levallois-Perret, injuring six of them.

The soldiers were part of Operation Sentinel, launched in the wake of Islamist attacks in Paris in early 2015. The Levallois-Perret attack was the 15th on troops and police in the last two-and-a-half years, many of them Islamic State-inspired.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-france-idUSKCN1AU28Q

Burglars shot by elderly homeowner sparking gun control debate in Israel

Friday, July 21st, 2017

An 82-year-old Holocaust survivor in Beit Yitzhak, near Netanya, shot two suspected burglars who entered his home on Monday night, killing one.

The incident sparked criticism of the police for not doing enough to combat burglaries, and calls for loosened gun restrictions from one Knesset member.

The suspects, ages 30 and 34, are from Tulkarm, not far from Beit Yitzhak in the Palestinian Authority. “An initial investigation by police officers revealed that a homeowner on Sadot Road in Moshav Beit Yitzhak heard noises in his house. When he entered the room, he noticed two suspects with burglary tools in their hands,” police said on Monday night. “The owner of the house fired at them. One person was killed and the other was evacuated to the hospital in moderate condition.”

Following the incident on Monday, there was an outpouring of criticism of the police.

Residents told Channel 2 that burglary is a daily phenomenon and that they feel like it is the “Wild West.”

Rami Bello, chairman of the town’s infrastructure committee, said that Beit Yitzhak is “a burglar’s paradise.”

“Our moshav is very large, and in the agricultural areas there are burglars who watch the houses and break into them every day,” Bello said in an interview with Radio 103 FM on Tuesday.

Police say, however, that they have dedicated large forces to dealing with the burglary problem and have seen a dramatic drop in property crime in the last year. In March the police arrested 15 people on suspicion of burglary in the Tel Aviv District. “In recent months we have seen sophisticated actions that have brought the arrests of hundreds of actors in criminal networks throughout Israel,” Police Commissioner Insp.- Gen. Roni Alsheich said in March after the arrests. “Many citizens in Israel will sleep with confidence and conduct their business as usual without fear, thanks to this extensive activity.”

Meanwhile residents voiced support for the actions of the elderly homeowner. One told Channel 2 that “maybe now the burglars in the area will be afraid.”

Likud MK Amir Ohana said the shooter “deserved a medal” for “returning security to his family, home and community.”

Ohana said he seeking to design a policy to increase access to firearms.

While firearms are frequently visible in public in Israel, being carried by soldiers and police officers, the country has strict gun control regulations for civilians. Those seeking a gun must pass background checks and mental and physical exams, and must have a security reason for needing a firearm.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Burglars-shot-by-elderly-homeowner-sparking-gun-control-debate-in-Israel-499401

Over 500 women obtained arms licenses in Egypt

Friday, July 21st, 2017

More than 500 women in Egypt carry a license to use weapons for self-defense in accordance with the law, according to official Public Security Sector statistics.
The majority of females who obtained the licenses are former MPs or prominent businesswomen.

According to the official figures, 160,328 male citizens obtained arms licenses, nationwide.

The Interior Ministry examines all males and females before granting them licences.
The Ministry specified that conditions for obtaining an arms license, whether for a man or a woman, include being at least 21 years of age, free of psychiatric or neurological illnesses, and free of criminal charges.

Individuals can submit requests for licenses to police stations, while private security companies can submit their requests to the Public Security Sector of the Interior Ministry.

Informed sources told Al-Masry Al-Youm that Jihan al-Sadat, wife of late President Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat, and Suzanne Mubarak, wife of former President Mohamad Hosni Mubarak, are among the women granted arms licenses.

Mubarak took two pistol shooting courses — one in Egypt and the other in the Royal Arms Club in London, the sources added.

 

Edited translation from Al-Masry Al-Youm

Source: http://www.egyptindependent.com/over-500-women-obtained-arms-licenses-egypt/

After London Attack, British Gun Activists Call For Right To Bear Arms

Friday, June 16th, 2017

The fringe movement is revving up its call for looser gun laws in response to the recent string of terror attacks on British soil. British activists are advocating for looser gun laws in response to the Saturday night ISIS terror attack that killed eight people and wounded nearly fifty others in central London. “These tragedies may have been the eye opener to just how ineffective our laws are,” Dave Ewing, a representative from the gun ownership advocacy group, Firearms-UK, told Vocativ.

Firearms-UK, along with other advocacy groups like Arm UK CitizensLegalise Guns in the UK, and England Wants Its Guns Back, have flocked to social media to slam the British government for maintaining harsh restrictions on gun ownership in response to the attack at London Bridge, which was the third terror attack on British soil in as many months.

They accuse the government of leaving its citizens exposed to violent terrorists and criminals, while politicians enjoy “24 hour armed bodyguards protecting them while they continue to sell the lie that firearms are not suitable for personal protection,” said a Firearms-UK Facebook post published in the wake of the London Bridge attack.

Gun ownership is heavily restricted in Britain and is among the tightest in Europe. After a school shooting that killed 15 children and their teacher in 1996, the British government legislated bans on assault rifles and handguns and heightened background checks for other types of firearms. Illicit gun ownership is also relatively low in Britain, which does not have the porous borders of its neighbors.

The British “gun rights” movement, therefore, remains fringe when compared to the U.S., where carrying guns is enshrined in the constitutional Second Amendment. British gun advocates call for modest reforms to gun laws that would allow the government to retain strict oversight on gun ownership, extensive background checks and mandatory weapons training, but would still permit gun owners to use their weapons in self-defense.

Ewing, from Firearms-UK, said that his movement has gained steady momentum as it’s moved online, where British members can connect and communicate with their many American counterparts who are eager to push their pro-gun agenda abroad.

Many Brits, and their American supporters, were outraged when after the Saturday attack, police sent out a tweet warning people in the area to run, hide, then call authorities. Officers at the scene also shouted at bystanders to disperse, a response that security experts say likely saved lives.

“In the US you are advised to Run, hide FIGHT if you are attacked. In the UK it is run, hide, tell and this shows just how the authorities care so little for us.  We are not running from school bullys, we are not all able to run or hide and might not have time to tell [sic],” read a recent post on the Firearms-UK Facebook page. One commenter posted a Texas-produced instructional video on surviving an active shooter event.

Following the London attack, dozens of social media posts written by Americans argued that the British need less gun control in order to prevent future attacks.

“I’m very fond of my country’s oldest, staunchest ally, and I’m sick to the back of my teeth of watching thugs commit these atrocities with impunity” said an American who said he carried concealed weapons, writing in the closed Facebook group England Wants Its Guns Back. “Y’all have what it takes, in admirable quantity, to prevail against these fanatics. Your government merely needs to stop throttling it to death.”

 

Source: http://www.vocativ.com/435513/after-london-attack-british-gun-activists-call-for-right-to-bear-arms/

Jun 06, 2017 at 4:15 AM ET

At L.A.-area gun store, Chinese immigrants exercise an unfamiliar right to bear arms

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

Tony Gao emerges from a gun store in the City of Industry with something he could have never gotten in his native China: a handgun license.

He passed the firearm safety test on his third try — he says the store’s Chinese translation of the test is a little off — but still, he’s a little nervous.

“Are you sure police won’t try to get me?” Gao, 58, asks.

Private gun ownership is generally banned in China. So when Chinese immigrants arrive in the U.S., many are curious about owning firearms.

In Los Angeles, Chinese immigrants frequent Gun Effects, a firearms store housed in a City of Industry strip mall that includes a boba tea spot, a massage parlor and a dinosaur-themed Taiwanese restaurant.

On a recent weekday, a line formed at a bilingual English and Chinese sign-in sheet as Tom Petty crooned over the store speakers. A few customers puzzled over a Chinese translation of the handgun test beneath an empty wall where the store once displayed assault weapons — all of which were snapped up before California’s tough new gun control measures take effect Jan. 1. The legislation was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in July in the wake of simmering outrage over mass shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando, Fla.

Across the state, sales have surged for semiautomatic rifles with bullet buttons, devices that allow for quick switching of ammunition cartridges and are banned under new law. Overall firearms sales increased by 40% over last year, according to the state Department of Justice.

In November, voters also approved Proposition 63, which outlaws the possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds, expands background checks for those buying bullets and makes it a crime to fail to report a lost or stolen gun.

At Gun Effects, Chinese buyers have shown up in droves to buy the store’s stock of soon-to-be restricted firearms.

Kai Kang, 48, of Irvine, lined up to purchase a scope for one of his guns. He remembers being curious about owning a gun when he came to America about a decade ago. In China he was in the military, but he never thought about owning a gun for his personal use.

Once he had his green card, he decided to try it out. Gun collecting eventually became a hobby. He goes to shooting ranges with his friends and keeps guns in his house for protection.

“I have short guns, long guns, handguns, AR-15s, rifles. I bought one, then I just kept buying more,” Kang said.

Gun Effects’ popularity with Chinese customers could have something to do with its Chinese ownership and bilingual services. The store’s owner, Dennis Lin, was born in Guangdong, China, to a dim sum chef and his wife. He came to the U.S. when he was 3 years old.

Lin, 29, grew up playing with airsoft guns and started a business selling gun accessories online after graduating from college. When the business grew, he opened a store.

Business was slow at first. He placed online advertisements, but they failed to increase demand. Still, about a year ago, Chinese customers began to show up in large numbers.

“I don’t even know how this happened, really,” Lin said. “In the past, most of our business has been with non-Chinese customers.”

Now about 40 percent of customers are Chinese, Lin said. He hired two Chinese-speaking employees and ramped up his study of Mandarin. He also travels to China several times a year to learn more about Chinese culture, which he never had much connection to as a kid.

In China, he’s careful never to say that he sells guns for a living.

“They do get nervous,” Lin said. “It’s like a taboo.”

Chinese customers often have questions about legality and safety, said Queenie Yang, one of the store’s Chinese-speaking employees. And many of them need time to get comfortable with even holding a gun.

One Chinese customer new to the country started shaking when he held a gun for the first time, Lin said. When he handed the gun back to Lin, it was soaked with sweat.

“I just tell them don’t be scared. It’s legal here,” Lin said.

Gao said that in China he never thought of owning a gun, and he admitted to being a little afraid of them. But he lives in America now, and he’s mostly retired and a little bored. His friends go to shooting ranges to pass the time and he decided to join them.

“I’m just doing this for fun. I don’t think everyone should have a gun,” Gao said.

Gao’s stance mirrors national trends. Asian Americans have the lowest rates of gun ownership among all demographic groups, according to exit polls conducted during the 2008 presidential election. And a 2016 survey of Asian American registered voters by APIAVote found that 77 percent wanted stricter gun control laws. Even Gao said he wouldn’t support legalizing private gun ownership in China.

Jason He, another Chinese customer, agreed.  He thinks it would be unwise for China to legalize private gun ownership, and expressed support for California’s new assault weapon restrictions.

Still, when his name was called from the wait list, he peppered one of the gun store’s Chinese-speaking employees with questions about weights, how to practice, and what kind of gun his wife should buy. He’s looking for a handgun and a long gun for his house, nothing too fancy or expensive.

Policy and politics aside, He said he has always wanted a gun.

“In China,” He said, “you only see guns on TV.”

Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-headlines-chinese-gun-store-20161228-story.html

Australia agrees to first national gun amnesty in 20 years

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia will allow gun owners to hand in illegal firearms without penalty next year as concerns grow over gun crimes involving such weapons, a federal minister said Friday.

Australia’s police and justice ministers agreed at a meeting to start a nationwide gun amnesty from the middle of 2017, Justice Minister Michael Keenan said.

“Australia is world-renowned for the strength of our firearm laws, but illegal firearms do remain a deadly weapon of choice for organized criminals,” Keenan told reporters.

It will be the first Australia-wide amnesty since a gun buy-back program in 1996 that followed a lone gunman killing 35 people in Tasmania state, Sydney University gun policy analyst Philip Alpers said.

That tragedy galvanized the government to legislate tough restrictions on rapid-fire weapons and to buy back almost 700,000 newly outlawed guns.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the nation has since imported almost 1.2 million legal guns, although none of them are military-style semi-automatic assault rifles that are now banned from public ownership.

An Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission report released Friday estimated there could be as many as 600,000 unregistered guns in Australia. There are 2.89 million registered guns among 24 million Australians, an increase of 9.3 percent in the past five years, the report said.

Most illegal guns in Australia were legally owned before 1996 when guns did not have to be registered. They were not handed in during the buy-back and there are no records that they even exist, the report said.

The market for illegal guns is partly driven by Middle Eastern crime gangs, outlaw motorbike clubs and other groups that traffic illegal commodities such as drugs, the report said.

It said that guns can be bought easily in the United States and sent to “countries such as Australia with relative anonymity, especially where transactions are made using emerging technologies and business practices, such as the darknet and freight-forwarding services.”

Alpers said overseas experience suggested that the Australian amnesty would collect only “rubbish guns” that were not valued by either legitimate gun owners or criminals.

The government plans to crack down on illegal guns by introducing a mandatory five-year minimum prison term for gun traffickers, as well as boosting screening of international mail, air and sea cargo.

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/australia-agrees-first-national-gun-amnesty-20-years-061128858.html

Mexicans have the right to own guns, but few do

Wednesday, October 12th, 2016

MEXICO CITY – There’s just one place in all of Mexico where you can legally buy a gun. It’s tucked away in an anonymous building on an army base in the capital, staffed by soldiers.

Those who enter must surrender any cell phones, tablets or cameras, remove caps and pass through a metal detector. Weapons are kept in locked glass cases, unlike many of the 50,000-plus U.S. gun shops where used-gun racks on showroom floors allow easy access and clerks are happy to let you heft an unloaded firearm.

Mexico’s constitution guarantees citizens’ right to own a handgun and hunting rifles for self-defense and sport. Legally getting your hands on one, however, requires clearing a series of bureaucratic hurdles far stricter than in the U.S. and, for many customers, traveling great distances to reach the country’s lone gun store.

In fact, most of Mexico’s 120 million inhabitants probably don’t even know about the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales – it’s prohibited from advertising any of its goods or the mere fact that it exists.

But that hasn’t stopped sales from booming, in parallel with a large and active black-market trade for contraband weapons flooding south from the U.S.

According to army records, the store sold 549 guns in 2000. For 2015, sales had risen to 10,115, an increase reflecting the rise in concern about personal safety during a surge in violent deaths in Mexico.

Sales spiked most dramatically after 2006, when then-President Felipe Calderon took office and declared war on Mexico’s drug cartels. The country recorded more than 164,000 killings between 2007 and 2014, according to official statistics.

At the gun store, 27 brands are on offer, from the American Colt, Austria’s Glock and Italy’s Beretta to the locally made Mendoza and Trejo.

Although gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution, the provision also empowers the government to regulate the types of weapons that are permitted and under what conditions. Mexicans can legally purchase one handgun for home protection, while members of hunting or shooting clubs can acquire up to nine rifles of no more than .30 caliber and shotguns up to 12 gauge, said the store’s manager, Col. Eduardo Tellez Moreno.

But unlike those who run U.S. gun shops, Tellez would rather no one buy what he’s selling.

“It’s preferred not to have a gun, even at home, because there could be accidents or worse, accidents within families due to the mishandling of weapons. It’s like having a match close to a fire,” Tellez said. “It’s an obligation of the state to provide security to the people who live in the country, not for you to take justice into your own hands.”

Some people aren’t confident about authorities’ ability to provide security.

On a recent day, Mexico City resident Alejandro Lozano came to pick up a hunting rifle after waiting about a week while his documents were processed. He said he keeps a handgun at home, but wishes he could legally carry it to protect himself from violent robberies targeting bus passengers, motorists at stoplights and customers emerging from banks and ATMs.

“It’s not difficult” to get a gun, Lozano said. But “we would like it better that they would let us carry like in the United States, that they let us carry whatever caliber we choose.”

At least six separate documents are required to buy a gun: a birth certificate, a letter confirming employment, proof of a clean criminal record from the attorney general’s office in the applicant’s home state, a utility bill with current address, a copy of a government-issued ID and a federal social security number.

Gun owners must register every weapon they have, and people say it’s nearly impossible to secure a concealed carry permit, something that’s allowed in the majority of U.S. states.

Luciano Segurajauregui Alvarez, a gun advocate who shoots recreationally and competitively, said those permits are routinely denied.

“If I put my papers in … they’re going to take about three to four, even six months, and then send me a letter telling me that it’s the obligation of the state to provide security for all people in Mexico, so your permit is denied,” said Segurajauregui, who is a professor of design at Mexico’s Metropolitan Autonomous University.

He called that idiotic. “You can’t assign a soldier to preserve the security of each and every one of the people,” he said.

Gun advocates say relaxing gun restrictions would help private citizens protect themselves from heavily armed gangs that terrorize and extort people in various parts of the country.

Many Mexicans perceive government security forces as unable to do that job, and often actually being in cahoots with the cartels. Since 2013, civilian “self-defense” militias have sprung up in some rural areas as communities became fed up by corruption, organized crime and a failure by police and military forces to keep them safe from drug gangs.

“To see us alone, to see us unprotected by the government, what did we have to do as citizens? Take up arms to defend our families and our own lives,” said Hipolito Mora, a co-founder of a militia in Michoacan, one of the country’s most restive states.

Yet, while Mexico has a homicide rate more than five times higher than in the U.S., such sentiments have brought no widespread debate about gun rights, and there is no political push to ease firearm restrictions.

“I think it’s a non-issue,” said Alejandro Hope, a security analyst in Mexico City. “The extreme liberal regime around gun control that exists in the United States is seen as a bizarre phenomenon. That carrying guns is seen as a major human right is bizarre.”

Mexico’s lone gun store sold 52,147 firearms in 2009-14, a figure dwarfed by the black market trade that’s largely fueled by illegal American imports. Mexican law bars guns from entering without an “extraordinary import authorization,” but enforcement is spotty: 73,684 of the 104,850 guns confiscated in Mexico during the same period were traced to the U.S., according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

There are no current statistics on the number of weapons held by Mexicans. The Geneva-based Small Arms Survey says Mexicans owned 15.5 million firearms in 2007, of which 4.5 million were properly registered with the army.

On the black market, buyers get access to the same kind of high-caliber weapons used by cartels and can avoid paperwork, waiting periods and travel.

For residents in the northwestern city of Tijuana, for example, it’s much simpler to buy a gun that has been purchased in one of San Diego’s 15 or so gun shops and smuggled into Mexico instead of going 1,700 miles to Mexico City.

Segurajauregui said gun advocates want the military to open stores in each of Mexico’s 31 states in addition to the capital, but there is no sign that’s in the works.

“Gun reform in Mexico has always been a hot potato,” he said. “Nobody wants to touch it. Nobody.”

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicans-have-the-right-to-own-guns-but-few-do/

Russians, Their Guns And the State

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016

U.S. gun enthusiasts live in constant fear of the federal government confiscating their weapons. For Russian gun owners, such a fear may be about to become a reality. On April 14, President Vladimir Putin, announced the formation of a new National Guard, and declared one of its key fuctions would be to control firearms.

“We are creating the National Guard to limit the circulation of weapons in the country,” he told the Russian people during his annual “direct line” national call-in show. What wasn’t clear was whether Putin was referring to guns legally owned by law-abiding Russians or to the stockpiles of illegal weapons flowing throughout Russia, fueled by the numerous wars on its borders.

Russia has a short history of private gun ownership — it was rare during the Soviet era — but the country’s stillborn civil society has started to push for greater access to firearms. Despite the government’s apparent willingness to make concessions, statistics still show that many gun-owning Russians prefer to skirt the bureaucracy and keep their unregistered guns off the radar — for one reason or another.

Up until now, the Kremlin had shown little sign of obvious concern. Yet, as millions of unchecked firearms flow through a nation reeling from economic crisis, some of their calculations are changing.

According to the most recent international surveys, roughly 9 percent of Russians own a firearm. Of the estimated 13 million guns in civilian hands, only around 60 percent are legally registered.

If Putin indeed intends to use the National Guard to track down these weapons, it wouldn’t be without precedent. “We have already seen a progressive tightening of the rules for citizens and private security firms alike,” says Mark Galeotti, an expert in Russian security services and criminal affairs. “But even after attempts to clean up the registration of firearms, there are many illegal guns in circulation in Russia.”

There are, however, reasons to doubt the National Guard has really been set up to search for guns. They have no investigative capacity and the only way to fulfill such a task would be to conduct house-to-house searches, an invasive and labor intensive process.

The types of illegal weapon used for the most serious crimes in Russia — contract killings, terrorism and similar types of activity — are often not unregistered shotguns, but military-issue firearms that Russian citizens don’t have access to. “In other words,” says Galeotti, “they are stolen from official stocks, essentially through corruption.”

Internet Shopping

You don’t need to be a corrupt policeman or military officer to procure weapons in Russia. There are many other options, ranging from the physical black markets peppered around Moscow to more modern, darker sources. These are the markets based in far-flung corners of the Internet, absent from the usual indexing services like Google or Yandex.

Those with the requisite technical savvy can get their hands on almost anything they want, provided they know where to look. One source, on condition of strict anonymity, directed The Moscow Times to one such online black market.

The process of getting there requires navigating to the labyrinthine depths of the dark web, and inputting a complicated chain of letters and numbers. Once there, you can access anything from drugs and weapons to information on building bombs. All transactions are facilitated anonymously via the Bitcoin electronic crypto-currency.

Such markets provide troves of information for would-be gun criminals. For example, one forum explains to first time buyers that a gun bought in central Russia costs up to $3,000, while weapons in Crimea are closer to $2,000.

If Interior Ministry statistics are any guide, Russians are more likely than ever to attempt to procure illegal weapons. The ministry recorded 27,000 violations over the course of 2015, an all-time high. The trend coincided with a rising crime rate of 8.6 percent, according to Gazeta.ru.

Some illegal guns are antiques, others are hunting rifles, but they have not been registered. Black-market guns have proliferated while gun ownership laws restrict the number and type of gun legally available.

At a glance

Source: Small Arms Survey

‘Evening the Odds’

Maria Butina is the founder of Russia’s first gun rights advocacy group. A tall, red-headed Siberian native in her late 20s, Butina called the group “The Right to Bear Arms,” and it now boasts 10,000 members.

While the government looks at ways of increasing public safety by reducing gun onwnership, Butina’s movement argues the opposite is the only answer. When crime increases, they say, ordinary people should be armed.

“We know a simple truth,” says Butina. “More legal guns equal less crime. If a country bans guns, only criminals have access to them. We believe in evening the odds for the average Russian.”

Many types of weapons, such as pistols and revolvers, remain off-limits to the Russian public. When they were developed, gun ownership laws were designed to enable Russians to hunt.

The bureaucratic procedure to legally procure a gun is complicated.

Any Russian choosing to legally own a gun is initially limited to a single shotgun, which is subjet to a permit. That permit is only granted after a citizen undergoes background checks, investigations into their criminal history, neighborhood circumstances, mental health and invasive home inspections. They also submit to future snap inspections by police. Five years after receiving a shotgun permit, they can then buy a hunting rifle.

Butina’s group can claim moderate success in influencing government policy. Two years ago, they collected 100,000 signatures petitioning the government to pass the so-called castle doctrine law, legislation that grants citizens the right to defend themselves and their property from danger using lethal force.

The group has also provided legal defense for Russians like Yevgeny Kostirin, who killed an armed intruder, and Alexei Urazov, who severely injured an attacker in his apartment stairwell with a pneumatic pistol, a weapon legal in Russia. The gun advocacy group can boast legal victories in both cases, but their final triumph is yet to be secured. While the State Duma passed the castle doctrine bill in 2014, it is still to be signed into law by the president.

Putin’s comments on the National Guard suggest that the Kremlin isn’t as keen on the idea of armed citizens as Butina’s group would hope. But she is now backed by the Russian gun industry, which — if the U.S. model is any indication — can be a powerful ally.

Russia’s gun industry, which is actively targeting civilian gun markets abroad, is also pushing for increased access to firearms within Russia. Ruslan Pukhov, the head of Russia’s Association of Gunsmiths, is confident of progress. According to Pukhov, the clear trend for gun rights in Russia is toward liberalization. “It’s two steps forward and one step back,” he says.

Broader support among the Russian public is not, however, forthcoming. Though Butina claims that up to 44 percent of Russians now see the value of bearing arms, data from the independent pollster Levada Center indicates the opposite. A 2013 poll showed that 80 percent of Russians remain wary of liberalizing gun rights — these figures have remained constant since the poll was first run in 1991.

Butina is undeterred, saying the public “lacks proper understanding” of the role of guns in modern society.

“Some people think guns have a will of their own; that guns kill people, rather than bad people killing people,” she says. “Removing guns from criminals is all well and good, but the best ‘National Guard’ would be ordinary people with legal guns ready to defend the Motherland.”

Contact the author at m.bodner@imedia.ru. Follow the author on Twitter at @mattb0401.

Source: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russians-their-guns-and-the-state-52720

Moscow airport shop sells model Kalashnikov guns

Monday, August 22nd, 2016

Travellers at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo international airport can now buy a model Kalashnikov assault rifle before they catch their flight.

A Kalashnikov boutique has opened at Sheremetyevo to promote the world-famous Russian gunmaker’s brand.

The shop’s souvenirs include camouflage gear and “I love AK” T-shirts.

The AK-47 assault rifle has a worldwide reputation for reliability. The Soviet bloc countries, and many guerrillas, relied on the gun for decades.

An airport official quoted by Reuters news agency said the model guns were clearly imitations and would not pose security problems.

Sheremetyevo is Russia’s biggest international airport, and handled more than 31 million passengers last year.

There is widespread international concern about replica weapons which can be mistaken for the real thing and potentially used by terrorists.

Kalashnikov souvenirs

Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of AK-47, 2002 file picImage copyrightAP
Image captionThe late Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 after being wounded in World War Two

A Russian state corporation, Rostec, owns 51% of the shares in the Kalashnikov concern, which makes the guns at Izhevsk, in central Russia.

In 2014 the EU and US added Kalashnikov to their lists of Russian arms manufacturers subject to sanctions because of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula.

The airport shop is part of the firm’s drive to expand its civilian merchandise.

“Kalashnikov is one of the most popular brands that come to mind when people think of Russia,” said the firm’s marketing director Vladimir Dmitriyev, quoted by RIA Novosti news agency.

“So we are pleased to provide everyone with an opportunity to take home a souvenir with our brand on it.”

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37143493

German right-wing leader backs citizens’ right to arm themselves

Monday, August 22nd, 2016

BERLIN (Reuters) – The leader of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has spoken out in favor of people arming themselves with guns and self-defense devices following a series of violent attacks last month.

The anti-immigrant AfD has won growing popular support in Germany due in part to Europe’s migrant crisis, which has seen more than 1 million refugees arrive over the past year, and it now has seats in eight of Germany’s 16 state assemblies.

After two Islamist attacks and a shooting rampage by a mentally unstable teenager last month, Germans are on edge and the AfD is expected to make a strong showing in votes next month in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

“Many people are increasingly feeling unsafe. Every law-abiding citizen should be in a position to defend themselves, their family and their friends,” Frauke Petry told the Funke Media Group in an interview published on Saturday.

“We all know how long it takes until the police can get to the scene, especially in sparsely populated places,” she said.

Known for her fiery speeches to AfD supporters, Petry sparked an uproar earlier this year when she called for German police to be allowed to use firearms against illegal migrants.

Petry rejected calls to toughen up gun laws, saying this would affect respectable citizens and not those who acquire weapons in the so-called “dark net“, which is only accessible via special browsers.

Instead, she criticized “ruinous cuts” on police and said the state at lost its monopoly on the use of force in places.

Germany has some of the most stringent rules around gun control in Europe. Firearm owners must obtain a weapons licence for which applicants must generally be at least 18 years old and show they have they have a reason for needing a weapon.

Nonetheless, sexual assaults on women in Cologne at New Year and three fatal attacks have added to the feeling of vulnerability and prompted Germans to stock up on scare devices.

The number of Germans applying for so-called “small firearms license”, which are required to carry around blank guns and pepper spray, jumped 49 percent in the first half of 2016 to 402,301, according to federal statistics.

However, permits for firearms fell to 1.894 million as of the end of June compared to 1.898 million a year earlier.

(Reporting by Caroline Copley; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-wing-leader-backs-citizens-arm-themselves-101701905.html?ref=gs

Venezuela crushes 2,000 guns in public, plans registry of bullets

Friday, August 19th, 2016

(Reuters) – Venezuelan police crushed and chopped up nearly 2,000 shotguns and pistols in a Caracas city square on Wednesday, as the new interior minister relaunched a long-stalled gun control campaign in one of the world’s most crime-ridden countries.

Interior Minister Nestor Reverol said the event marked the renewal of efforts to disarm Venezuelans, through a combination of seizures and a voluntary program to swap guns for electrical goods.

Venezuela has the world’s second highest murder rate and the street gangs that plague its poor neighborhoods have become increasingly heavily armed in recent years, at a time when a deep recession has reduced resources available to police.

Gangs often get weapons from the police, either by stealing them or buying them from corrupt officers, experts say.

With inflation of 185 percent in 2015 and a currency collapse, police salaries have fallen far behind rising prices creating more incentives for corruption.

ADVERTISEMENT
President Nicolas Maduro promoted Reverol this month, days after the United States accused the former anti-drugs tsar of taking bribes from cocaine traffickers.

“We are going to bring disarmament and peace,” Reverol told reporters, while police officers drilled and sawed at rusty shotguns, home made pistols and some newer weapons.

Other guns were crushed in truck-mounted presses. Some members of the public watched, although more danced to a nearby sound system playing salsa music.

Venezuela has also bought laser technology to mark ammunition, Reverol said, in an attempt to keep a registry of the bullets given out to the South American nation’s many state and municipal police forces.

Experts say that much of the ammunition used in crimes in Venezuela is made at the country’s government munitions factory and sold on by corrupt police.

(Reporting by Frank Jack Daniel; Editing by David Gregorio)

Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10S2I9

India Wants to Be One of the World’s Biggest Arms Exporters

Monday, August 15th, 2016

India is seeking to boost arms exports 20-fold in a decade to $3 billion, a push that if successful would transform one of the world’s biggest importers into a major seller of defense equipment.

Steps by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to spur defense manufacturing, if properly implemented, open up the possibility of hitting that figure by 2025, Defense Production Secretary A. K. Gupta said. The challenge is to boost private-sector investment and technological expertise, he said.

“This will not only take us toward the goal of self-reliance in defense production, but will also create tremendous employment opportunities,” Gupta, one of the top bureaucrats in India’s Defense Ministry, said in the interview in New Delhi last month.

 India sells about $150 million of arms overseas yearly — a fraction of the $64 billion in worldwide defense trade — ranging from parts for Russia’s Sukhoi fighter jets to a naval vessel recently commissioned in Mauritius. The nation relies on strained state manufacturers that lack some of the expertise of global defense majors, signaling a need for more private-sector involvement even as companies are wary of difficult business conditions.

“India’s exports target seems ambitious,” said Deba R. Mohanty, a defense analyst and chairman of Indicia Research & Advisory in New Delhi. “If it’s able to meet such targets, then it will in all likelihood be a competitor to many countries, including China.”

The sectors where India has export potential include naval ships, helicopters and components for aircraft, according to consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

China’s defense exports reached $1.5 billion in 2014, the eighth-largest in the world in a ranking dominated by the $23.7 billion sold by the U.S., according to IHS Inc. research. India imported $5.6 billion, the most after Saudi Arabia.

Climbing Shipments

India estimates exports of materiel more than doubled over the two fiscal years ended March 2015 to 9.9 billion rupees ($145 million).

Modi’s policy changes include fewer curbs on foreign investment in defense, looser export controls and a reworked procurement policy that’s set to encourage domestic output. His government has authorized about $65 billion of arms purchases since taking power in May 2014 and is targeting a major naval expansion with locally made ships.

The administration is also sharing the blueprints of state equipment — such as theRustom drone — with the private sector for the first time, to spur technological development and possible overseas sales.

Companies ranging from Larsen & Toubro Ltd., India’s biggest engineer, to Airbus Group SE sense opportunities from less onerous rules and the drive for modernization.

State Companies

But there’s a long way to go.

Modi in April scaled back a long-pending order for 126 Dassault Aviation SA Rafale warplanes, which stalled partly because the tender included the challenge of making 108 of the complex jets at India’s state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

In the end, the premier opted for 36 Rafales from France in fly-away condition. France’s Safran SA subsequently shelved plans to make engine parts for Rafale aircraft in India. The episode shows the task Modi faces to catalyze a defense-industrial complex.

State companies account for more than 80 percent of defense production and are already stretched, according to Anurag Garg, a director of defense at Strategy&, a consulting group of PwC. Depending on the private sector to spur exports significantly would need companies to design weapons systems to sell abroad, and that’s no easy task, he said.

The government is trying to do its bit by improving the policy framework, but the push needs the support of industry, said Gupta from the Defense Ministry.

“Industry also needs to come up and accept the challenge,” he said.

 

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/india-s-3-billion-arms-export-goal-puts-china-in-modi-s-sights

Kalashnikov designs superior assault rifle for Russian Special forces

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

Russian weapons manufacturer Kalashnikov has reportedly offered Russia’s Special Forces a brand new adaptive assault rifle, which outmatches all of its previous products.

The AK-400 is superior to the tried and true AK-74 and state-of-the-art AK-12 in terms of both precision and fire dispersion, a source within the Russian military industry told Izvestia newspaper. “AK-400 assault rifles were presented in late 2015 at a meeting organized by the Presidential Security Service. The products have interested customers, and they are now studying the offer,” he said. According to the source, the AK-12, which has been in service in the Russian military since 2014, doesn’t fully meet the requirements of elite Special Forces. “AK-12 is a weapon for the infantry, paratroopers, and reconnoiters. And the troops in the Special Forces need a more compact rifle, which – on the one hand – isn’t inferior to Ak-12 in precision and fire dispersion, but – on the other hand – is compact enough to storm buildings, planes, trains, and buses, as well as jump with a parachute and walk in the forest,” he explained.

The source didn’t share a lot of information about the AK-400, however, and all that is known about the assault rifle is that it has a length of approximately 940 millimeters and weighs slightly over 3 kilograms. The new Kalashnikov will have a special “cutoff” fire mode that releases bullets only when the trigger is pulled. It also has a retractable telescopic butt-stock that allows it to be shortened in a matter of seconds, allowing the rifle to be used inside of a car or even hidden under clothing.

The AK-400 is equipped with a Picatinny Rail, a mounting platform for various sights, pens, flashlights, and laser target designators. The assault rifle is intended for use by the Presidential Security Service, as well as Alpha, Vympel, and other Special Forces units in the Federal Security Service (FSB).

Source: https://www.rt.com/news/343695-kalashnikov-superior-assault-rifle/

 

 

India already had some of the world’s strictest gun laws. Now it’s tightened them.

Thursday, August 4th, 2016

As mass shooting incidents in the United States rise, India has tightened its firearms regulations, making it even more difficult for common citizens to own a gun.

India already had some of the strictest gun laws in the world, a vestige of British colonial rule, which aimed to disarm its subjects. Indian law allows citizens to own and carry guns, but it is not a right enshrined in the constitution. Getting a gun license in India is a difficult task that can take years.

Now, in the most ambitious restructuring of arms rules in more than five decades, the government has made the laws even tougher. Prospective gun owners will have to show they have been trained, and they must carry their firearms only in holders and secure them in a “knocked down” condition in gun lockers at home. The government will declare new gun-free zones, in addition to schools, across the country. Even air guns will require an arms license.

The new gun restrictions are not a reaction to recent violence. The process has taken five years, but it quickened after Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected in 2014. The rules were put into effect last month and will be presented in Parliament.

An official in the Ministry of Home Affairs, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to the media, said the changes are intended “to bring in transparency in the arms-control regime, prevent, combat and eradicate illicit trade in small arms and light weapons . . . and bring in the contemporary practices in international laws.”

The changes have riled the nascent National Association for Gun Rights India.

“We are very disappointed. What the government is saying is that it cannot trust its citizens,” said Rahoul Rai, the group’s president.

The “last few years, we have discussed with the government steps to remove the harassment law-abiding citizens face in getting firearm licenses,” Rai said. “One shouldn’t have to jump through 25 hoops to get a license. Unfortunately, they have created a situation where people will get desperate and will end up getting illegal guns.”

From now on, an official who issues or denies a gun license will have to write down the reasons. Rai said that is unworkable because no bureaucrat will “stick his neck out.” Licenses are issued for three categories: self-defense, sports and crop protection.

The official said that “imminent” threat has been replaced with “anticipated” threat because the former was “difficult to prove” for applicants.

India shifted from century-old manual record-keeping recently and put into a national database information on about 2.6 million gun-license holders.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, gun-
related deaths increased from 3,063 to 3,655 between 2010 and 2014. There were 10 times that number in 2013 in the United States.

But only 14 percent of the victims in 2014 in India were killed by licensed guns. The rest were killed by illegal weapons, largely prevalent in the hinterlands.

An American is 12 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than is an Indian, according to an analysis by the group ­IndiaSpend, based on a database collated by Gun Policy, a global gun watch group.

India, along with countries such as Australia, has among the tightest gun laws in the world. The United States has some of the most lenient.

Activists say India should not go the American way.

“Some Indians are inspired by the easy American culture of buying guns off the counter,” said Binalakshmi Nepram, founder of Control Arms Foundation of India. “We are a country that won independence from colonial rulers without firing a single shot. Making it easy for citizens to arm themselves would mean the state admits that it has failed to provide security.”

For the first time, however, the government has allowed citizens to own licensed electronic disabling devices such as taser guns — a step many say will boost women’s safety. After the fatal gang rape of a 23-year-old student in a moving bus in 2012, women have begun carrying pepper spray in their purses and learning martial arts. The government even introduced a lighter taser gun for women.

The official said such devices will also be used to guard banks, toll plazas and other public places.

Even as the new rules make it difficult for average citizens to own guns, they have cleared the way for local manufacturing of guns by private companies, in line with Modi’s push for defense production. In June, Modi allowed 100 percent foreign investment in the defense sector.

“This is the green signal we were waiting for,” said Ashok Wadhawan, president of manufacturing at Punj Lloyd, which has a partnership with Israel Weapon Industries. “At first, we will be selling them to the Indian army and the police. It is extremely prestigious for them to hold an Indian rifle instead of an imported rifle.”

But the most puzzling move for many is that air guns, blank-firing guns and paintball guns are now classified as weapons that will require a license, which is vexing to sport enthusiasts.

The official said that this was done to check “potential misuse,” because with some “machining and drilling” they could be converted into firearms.

“Overnight, my son is a criminal,” said Chandan Agarwal, a gun owner and entrepreneur.

Abhijeet Singh, a 43-year-old software engineer and gun owner who set up the Indians for Guns website, said, “Nobody has started a rebellion in any country with an air gun.”

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-had-the-one-of-the-strictest-gun-laws-in-the-world-it-just-got-tighter/2016/08/01/affd9422-51da-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

Uganda’s gun control under scrutiny as armed crime rises

Monday, August 1st, 2016

KAMPALA (HAN) July 30.2016. Public Diplomacy & Regional Security News. By IVAN R MUGISHA. Uganda’s gun control policies have come under scrutiny following a new study that shows the country has the highest number of armed crime incidents in the

The study, titled Analysis of Armed Crime Rates, released last Monday in Kigali, was conducted between 2010 and March this year by the Regional Centre on Small Arms (RECSA) in conjunction with the African Development Bank.

The report shows that an alarming 43,512 armed crime incidents were reported in the country between 2010 and 2014, which is the highest in East Africa. The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Uganda is 400,000, yet only about 3,000 are legally registered, according to Gun Policy statistics.

Uganda’s Police Commissioner Okello Makmot said the high incidence can be attributed to the country’s location “in the hub of a conflict zone, with various rebel groups from the neighbouring countries of the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan who are believed to sneak in unregistered arms into the country.”

He said that despite the government carrying out an intense exercise to disarm the Karamojong in the east of the country, Kenya and Sudan have not done the same, meaning arms can easily be sneaked in. Over 40,000 guns were recovered in the recent disarmament.

According to Oneste Mutsindashyaka, the executive secretary of RECSA, Rwandans are 80 times less likely to fall victim of armed crimes than Ugandans.

Rwanda experienced the least number of armed crimes, with only 421 incidents reported in the period under review.

Burundi reported 26,041 armed crime incidents — the second highest in the region — followed by Kenya with 11,827 and Tanzania with 9,646.

“Small arms circulation across the borders is a key driver of armed conflicts in the region. It is against this backdrop that RECSA has been implementing a number of projects in the region aimed at combating the proliferation and use of illicit firearms,” said Mr Mutsindashyaka.

Somorin Alufunso, a senior policy analyst at AfDB, said armed conflicts continue to destroy lives in the region and called on countries to implement policies aimed at eliminating illicit flow and use of firearms.

Each country has put in place mechanisms to curb armed crime, but not all are strictly implementing those mechanisms, which has led to armed crime being a serious threat to regional security, according to RECSA.

Source: http://www.geeskaafrika.com/21990/ugandas-gun-control-under-scrutiny-as-armed-crime-rises/#

German officials urge tightening of already strict gun laws

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

MUNICH — Two days after the mass shooting by a violence-obsessed teen here, German politicians on Sunday urged tighter gun restrictions in a country that already has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world.

Germany has one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths despite high levels of gun ownership. Even so, Friday’s shooting spree that left nine dead and dozens wounded prompted German lawmakers to say more needs to be done to prevent another massacre using firearms.

German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel told the Funke Mediengruppe newspaper chain that the country “must continue to do all we can to limit and strictly control access to deadly weapons.”

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper, “We have to evaluate very carefully if and where further legal changes are needed.”

The gunman behind the attack outside a Munich shopping mall, Ali David Sonboly, 18, obtained his Glock pistol illegally and did not have a license, investigators said. He would have struggled to meet Germany’s stringent requirements for legal possession.

Applicants under 25 must undergo a series of tough checks that include whether the person has a history of mental health issues. They must also pass tests about gun knowledge and get approval for what the weapon will be used for. Unlike in the United States, there is no guaranteed right to bear arms.

Sonboly, born in Munich to parents who had emigrated from Iran, received both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric treatment last year to help him deal with depression and to deal with “fears of contact with others,” Thomas Steinkraus-Koch, of the Munich prosecutors’ office, said Sunday. The teen also had been planning the attack for more than a year, and a “manifesto” was found in his room, Baviarian investigator Robert Heimberger said.

The strict application process didn’t stop Sonboly from acquiring an illegal weapon, of course, but it appears to have helped Germany reduce gun-related deaths to 57 last year, down from more than 800 in 1995, according to the website GunPolicy.org. That compares with about 13,445 people killed in the United States by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

Germany has a population of 80 million vs. the U.S.’ 319 million. There are about 5.5 million legally owned guns in Germany, according to the nation’s National Guns Registry, putting it in fourth place behind the United States, Switzerland andFinland. In the U.S., the figure is about 300 million, according to the Guns in America website.

NPR, citing data from the Congressional Research Service, reported there are roughly twice as many guns per person in the United States as there were in 1968.

Much of Germany’s stringent gun legislation was enacted after two mass shootings at schools here. In 2002, an expelled high school student used a semiautomatic gun to kill 16 people and himself. In 2009, an ex-student went to his old school and killed 15 pupils.

Before Friday’s incident there had not been a mass shooting — defined by the FBI as four or more people killed in a single event — in Germany since the 2009 attack. There were 332 mass shootings in the U.S, last year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and there have been 201 so far in 2016.

German authorities said Sonboly was obsessed with mass violence. Last year, he visited the site of that 2009 school shooting in the town of Winnenden and took pictures, Heimberger said Sunday. And Saturday’s shooting spree occurred on the fifth anniversary of an attack in Norway by anti-immigrant Anders Behring Breivik, killing 77 people, many of them teenagers at a camp.

 

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/23/german-gun-laws-among-worlds-strictest/87482162/

Ruling puts Pacific islanders in gun debate crosshairs

Wednesday, March 30th, 2016

America’s heated gun debate has extended to a remote Pacific territory, with a court overturning a ban on handguns in the Northern Marianas after ruling it breached the US Constitution’s Second Amendment.

In a ruling greeted with dismay by the island territory’s leaders, the US District Court found the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment also applied to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

“The Second Amendment… (is) the law of the land in the CNMI as if it were a (US) state,” judge Ramona V. Manglona said in a written judgement released Monday.

The challenge to CNMI restrictions was backed by the Second Amendment Foundation pro-gun group, which hailed the decision as “a big win”.

Governor Ralph Torres said he was considering an appeal but would also look at introducing safety measures such as background checks and waiting times if the judgement stood.

Read full article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3515012/Ruling-puts-Pacific-islanders-gun-debate-crosshairs.html

See also: http://noticias.lainformacion.com/policia-y-justicia/magistratura/Islas-Marianas-autorizan-tenencia-armas_0_903209814.html

Gun Sales Surge In Switzerland As Army Chief Warns “Arm Yourselves”

Monday, January 4th, 2016

VIA Zerohedge.com

It would appear the people of Switzerland have been listening to their military leaders. Having recently been warned by the Swiss army chief of growing social unrest, SwissInfo reports applications for gun permits in Switzerland increased by 20% between 2014 and 2015, according to a survey conducted in 12 cantons. But while the army proposes “arm yourselves,” Swiss crime prevention officials warn against the false sense of security that guns bring.

Whereas in 2011 numerous people in Switzerland voluntarily gave up their firearms, today more and more people are purchasing guns.

Swiss army chief André Blattmann warned, “The threat of terror is rising, hybrid wars are being fought around the globe; the economic outlook is gloomy and the resulting migration flows of displaced persons and refugees have assumed unforeseen dimensions,” adding that “Social unrest can not be ruled out.”

He further recalled the situation around the two world wars in the last century and advised the people of Switzerland to arm themselves

And, as SwissInfo reports, it appears they have…

Applications for gun permits in Switzerland increased by 20% between 2014 and 2015, according to a survey conducted in 12 cantons by Swiss public television, SRF.

 

The survey, published on Wednesday, showed that in the 12 (out of 26) cantons surveyed, the Swiss are increasingly interested in purchasing pistols, rifles and other firearms for private use.

 

The greatest increase – more than 70% – was measured in canton Vaud, with more than 4,200 applications in 2015, compared with 2,427 in 2014.

 

There is a general climate of uncertainty and an increased fear of intruders, said Pierre-Olivier Gaudard, head of crime prevention for canton Vaud.

But Martin Boess, director of Swiss crime prevention, warned against the false sense of security that guns bring.

“When there are more guns in circulation, there is a greater danger for society,” he said in an interview on the 10 vor 10 news programme. “That’s shown by experience in places like the United States. When there are more guns, there are more accidents with guns.”

 

In Switzerland, with more than 8 million inhabitants, there are about 2.5 million legal weapons, around half of which are used for Swiss military service.

*  *  *

And while the Swiss go about their legal business of arming themselves, President Obama is preparing to unleash another weapon – the executive order – to enact gun-control legislation.

Facing stiff resistance to gun-control legislation in Congress, Mr. Obama has signaled that he plans to act on his own. The president has directed administration officials to explore any steps he could take on guns without lawmakers’ help, and he said in his weekly address that he would sit down with Ms. Lynch on Monday “to discuss our options.”

 

“I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” Mr. Obama said in the address, which was released Friday morning.

 

Gun-control advocates who are familiar with the White House’s plans say Mr. Obama could lay out multiple executive actions as soon as next week, and administration officials have confirmed that recommendations for the president are nearing completion.

 

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Mr. Obama asked his team to “scrub existing legal authorities” and assess actions that could be taken administratively.

Free-dom indeed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-01/gun-sales-surge-switzerland-army-chief-warns-arm-yourselves

ACT NOW: Oppose EU Firearms Proposal

Wednesday, December 16th, 2015

There are two things you must do to oppose the new EU Firearms Ban Proposals:

First, write all of your MEP representatives (more information below).

Second, sign this petition from Firearms United

H/T Firearms UK

This is a link to a document created by Colin Jenkins and  contains contact details of all the MEP’s involved in the committee that is scrutinizing the EU Firearms proposal.

Please use the list carefully to send the committee members relevant and helpful emails that provide answers and information as well as dispelling untruths they may have been told or heard to help them make the decision we want.

This is excellent proactive work, thank you Colin.

Please click on the following image to open the document…

EU Firearms Proposal Committee Members

Colin’s original document can be found here

The futility of fighting terrorism with gun control

Wednesday, December 9th, 2015
Self-righteousness is liberating. The same people who are most exercised about guns in America, and want to ban and even confiscate entire categories of firearms, know little about them and evidently feel no compunction to learn.

The worst terror attack in the United States since 9/11 has become the occasion for another frenzied, poorly informed push for new gun restrictions.

President Obama gave a prime-time address on the terror threat, in which he resolutely re-affirmed the status quo in the campaign against ISIS. Except that he hopes that gun control, one of the signal political and policy failures of our time, will now be deployed to help foil the apocalyptic terror group.

Almost every time there is a mass shooting, there is a rush to push old gun-control chestnuts regardless of their applicability.

The San Bernardino terror couple didn’t buy their guns at a gun show (making the effort to close the so-called gun-show loophole irrelevant); they weren’t on the terrorism watch list (so the proposal to ban people on the list from buying guns wouldn’t have stopped them); and Syed Farook passed a background check when he bought two handguns (rendering calls for universal background checks moot).

Read the rest at: http://nypost.com/2015/12/07/the-futility-of-fighting-terrorism-with-gun-control/

Brazil Set to Recognize Individual Gun Rights

Friday, November 20th, 2015

Supporters say bill will recover lost rights

BY:

Brazil’s congress is set to vote on legislation that would eliminate many of its restrictive gun laws and recognize the right for individuals to own guns for self-protection.

“Brazil is an extremely violent country and the state has failed to resolve this problem,” Laudivio Carvalho of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, who wrote the legislation, told Time.

“The population needs the right to defend themselves, their family, and their property as they are the ones being attacked. Ninety percent of assaults are being carried out with illegal weapons.”

The bill would remove restrictions that require Brazilian citizens to obtain approval from government officials before purchasing firearms as well as lower the age of ownership from 25 to 21. It would also increase the number of firearms and amount of ammunition Brazilians can purchase each year. However, they would still be limited to nine firearms and 600 rounds of ammunition per year.

Read the rest of the article at: http://freebeacon.com/issues/brazil-set-to-recognize-individual-gun-rights/

Control of Firearms, Energy Union and Neighbourhood Policy Review

Friday, November 20th, 2015

Today the European Commission proposed measures on the control of firearms, presented its first State of the Energy Union Report and its review of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

Stronger control of firearms

Today the European Commission adopted a package of measures to make it more difficult to acquire firearms in the European Union, easier to track legally held firearms, strengthen cooperation between Member States and to ensure that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable.

The package of measures on firearms adopted by the College of Commissioners today includes a revision of the Firearms Directive to tighten controls on the acquisition and possession of firearms; a Regulation on common minimum standards for deactivation of firearms. The Commission also announced that it will prepare an action plan against the illegal trafficking of weapons and explosives.

Originally presented in the European Security Agenda adopted in April 2015, the proposals  have been significantly accelerated in light of recent events.

President Juncker said: “The recent terrorist attacks on Europe’s people and values were coordinated across borders, showing that we must work together to resist these threats. Today’s proposal, prepared jointly by Commissioners Bieńkowska and Avramopoulos, will help us tackle the threat of weapons falling into the hands of terrorists”. Internal Market and Industry Commissioner Bieńkowska and Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Avramopoulos added: “The adoption of the firearms package today is proof of the Commission’s determination to address the new reality we are confronted with”.

H/T:  http://ec.europa.eu/news/2015/11/20151118_en.htm

Europa bewapent zich

Wednesday, November 18th, 2015

De Europese Unie (EU) wankelt. Kortgeleden verklaarde Europees commissaris Frans Timmermans dat hij bezorgder dan ooit is over de toekomst van de EU. De migratiecrisis heeft verdeeldheid gezaaid onder de lidstaten en een oplossing voor het vraagstuk lijkt verder weg dan ooit. Veel Europeanen maken zich terecht zorgen over de massale volksverhuizing vanuit Afrika evenals het Midden-Oosten en vertrouwen niet langer blindelings op hun wereldvreemde en incompetente leiders. Deze onzekerheid manifesteert zich in een wapenwedloop; een fenomeen dat we sinds de Koude Oorlog niet meer hebben gezien.

Het Midden-Oosten staat in brand, de verhoudingen met Rusland zijn zeer gespannen en de terrorismedreiging is groter dan ooit. De vraag naar strijdkrachten en veiligheidsdiensten voorzien van adequaat materieel en financiering is groot, maar het tegenovergestelde blijkt waar: zowel de krijgsmacht als de veiligheidsdienst zijn kapotbezuinigd. Het Nederlandse leger beschikt niet eens over eigen tanks en soldaten moeten “pang pang” roepen tijdens trainingen wegens een gebrek aan munitie. Tussen 2012 en 2014 is er maar liefst 68 miljoen euro bezuinigd op de AIVD, dat terwijl de veiligheidsdienst gebukt gaat onder een personeelstekort. Zo is er onvoldoende personeel om (potentiële) jihadisten te schaduwen.

Toch kunnen we vaststellen dat er geen sprake is van een conventionele wapenwedloop. De stijging van de verkoop van wapens en andere artikelen in het kader van zelfverdediging wordt veroorzaakt door bezorgde burgers.

Dit fenomeen is goed zichtbaar in Oostenrijk, een land met een relatief liberale wapenwet. Aldaar vliegen vuurwapens als warme broodjes over de toonbank. Vooral shotguns alsook geweren zijn gewild en veel wapenwinkels zijn volledig uitverkocht. Verder is er een interessante ontwikkeling gaande met betrekking tot het klantenprofiel; een substantieel gedeelte van de wapens wordt gekocht door vrouwen.

In Tsjechië ontvouwt zich een vergelijkbaar scenario. Op een bevolking van ongeveer 10.5 miljoen zijn er 290.000 vergunninghouders die samen 785.000 vuurwapens bezitten. Dit aantal zal in de komende tijd echter explosief toenemen. De aanvraag voor wapenvergunningen is bijna verviervoudigd en de eigenaren van wapenwinkels geven aan dat dit voornamelijk te wijten valt aan de migratiecrisis.

Read the rest of the original article here: http://curiales.nl/2015/11/13/europa-vuurwapens-wapenwet/

Brazil eyes ‘Wild West’ gun ownership law

Friday, October 30th, 2015

Rio de Janeiro (AFP) – Brazil, which has one of the highest murder tolls on the planet, could soon end most restrictions on gun ownership, risking what one critic called a “Wild West” scenario.

A draft law stripping away current limits has already been approved in committee and is due to go to the lower house of Congress in November.

Under the law, anyone over 21, including people accused of crimes or convicted of less than serious crimes, would be allowed to purchase up to nine firearms a year and 50 rounds of ammunition a month.

State employees and public figures, ranging from government inspectors to politicians, would be authorized to carry arms, as would private citizens often in the public eye such as taxi drivers.

At present, weapons can only be bought legally by people obtaining a license on a case-by-case basis.

Read the rest of the story at Yahoo.com

Europe’s Rush to Buy Guns

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.

Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.

Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.

The laws in Austria, while still strict, are a bit less overbearing.

A Czech TV report confirms that long guns – shotguns and rifles – have been flying off the shelves in Austria, and Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time. They’re all sold out.

And those arming themselves are primarily women.

Full story at WND.com

Austrians Are Buying Guns

Monday, October 26th, 2015

The flood of “refugees” into Austria is continuing without interruption. The Hungarian route has become less active, and traffic is now flowing at a rapid rate through Slovenia instead.

According to the following report from Czech Independent TV, Austrians — especially women — are responding to the presence of all these “New Austrians” by purchasing firearms at a record rate. Many thanks to Xanthippa for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

H/T: Gates of Vienna

Italian mayor announces fund that will give anyone 250 euros towards the cost of a GUN

Thursday, October 22nd, 2015
  • Mayor of Borgosesia announced plans for a new firearm fund on Facebook
  • Gianluca Buonanno vowed to pay citizens €250 towards the cost of a gun
  • He said government’s ‘jail-emptying laws’ failing to protect ‘honest Italians’
  • The €250 being offered is about 30 per cent of cost of a small pistol in Italy

An Italian mayor has vowed to pay citizens €250 towards the cost of a gun after accusing the country’s government of failing to protect ‘honest Italians’ with its ‘jail-emptying laws’.

Gianluca Buonanno, the Northern League mayor of Borgosesia in Piedmont, northern Italy, announced his plans for a new firearm fund on Facebook.

He said he was doing so to allow people to ‘defend themselves from delinquents, who the government is privileging’.

Buonanno, who serves as an MEP, has also asked the European Commission to set up a similar fund. The €250 being offered is about 30 per cent of the cost of a small pistol in Italy, according to La Repubblica.

Read full story here:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3283536/Italian-mayor-announces-fund-250-euros-cost-GUN.html?ITO=1490&

Noting Success Of U.S. Gun Culture, Panama Reverses Gun Control Laws

Thursday, September 17th, 2015

The nation of Panama has looked at their rising crime rate and increased gang activity, and has decided that the only think that will stop bad guys with guns is law-abiding citizens with guns.

Criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws. And those intent on committing a crime with a gun will not be deterred by gun control laws. But, with few exceptions, even criminals believe in self-preservation, and are less likely to attack someone capable of fighting back. Hence, the importance of the right to arm and defend oneself and others.

These pro-Second Amendment arguments are familiar to us here in the United States, but the “more guns, less crime” experience of the U.S. is being trumpeted in a somewhat unlikely place: Panama. The Central American nation has been struggling with rising crime, gang activity and forged gun permits. In order to address these problems, and promote personal safety, the government is preparing to lift its ban on firearms imports, in place since 2012, so that citizens may better defend themselves.

Full article at BearingArms.com

Panama Lifts Ban on Gun Imports amid Rising Crime Wave

Friday, August 7th, 2015

More Firearms Will Mean Fewer Homicides, Says Public Safety Minister

As Panama deals with increases in crime rates, forged gun permits, and rising gang activity, the government is set to lift the ban on firearm imports, in an effort to promote personal safety.

Public Safety Minister Rodolfo Aguilera said the country will follow in the footsteps of the United States and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms is believed to lead to fewer homicides.

“Everything seems to indicate that there is no direct correlation in the aphorism that says more guns mean more crime,” said Aguilera, who explained that relaxed gun laws have allowed the United States to reduce the homicide rate over the last 20 years.

Click here for full article

IAPCAR And SAF Laud Puerto Rico Court Victory For Gun Rights

Thursday, June 25th, 2015

A surprising victory for gun rights in Puerto Rico has eliminated the firearms registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry in the Commonwealth, the Second Amendment Foundation has confirmed.

As of now, according to Sandra Barreras with Ladies of the Second Amendment (LSA), the group that brought the lawsuit, “there is no regulation to purchase or carry (and) all purchases will be handled in accordance with federal firearms regulations.” LSA is affiliated with SAF through the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

The class-action lawsuit challenged various articles in Puerto Rico’s gun law, which the court declared unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Barreras said, Puerto Ricans may now carry openly or concealed without a permit, and they do not need to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm.

This was a class action lawsuit involving more than 850 individual plaintiffs, she reported to SAF offices. The news was greeted with delight, especially because in reaching its decision, the court cited the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases, and the recent ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia. Both the McDonald and Palmer cases were won by SAF.

“Cumbersome firearms regulations have never prevented criminals from getting their hands on guns,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They have only inconvenienced law-abiding citizens, or deprived them outright from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.”

Gottlieb said the lawsuit was brought in a Puerto Rican Commonwealth court, rather than a federal court. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and thus is subject to federal court jurisdiction.

“This case turned out better than anyone had really anticipated,” he commented. “We’re very pleased to have played an advisory role in this case, and if there is a government appeal, we’ll definitely be there with whatever support we can provide to our good friends in Puerto Rico.”

Media Release – NFA WINS AGAIN AT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Thursday, April 16th, 2015

Via NFA.CA

CANADA’S NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION MEDIA RELEASE
NFA Wins Again at Supreme Court of Canada

Speaking from Prince George, BC, NFA President Sheldon Clare expressed the association’s pleasure at today’s decision of the SCC which struck down mandatory minimum sentencing in Regina v. Nur.  “This is a great day and a very good decision for all Canadians,” Clare stated.  “Once again judges will be able to use their discretion when sentencing and be able to make sentences proportional to the offence.  It simply wasn’t right to have people at risk of mandatory prison terms for what amounts to paperwork or technical offences that are victimless crimes under Canadian firearms law.  We are very grateful to our lawyer Solomon Friedman, of the Ottawa firm Edelson, Clifford, D’Angelo, Friedman for his work on our case, as we are to lawyer Guy Lavergne for his efforts on the victory for Quebec firearms owners on the recent registry case.  We are now two wins and no losses at the Supreme Court of Canada.  This situation is a clear demonstration of just how effective the NFA team is in these legal matters.”

Clare continued, “No other firearms organization in Canada has developed the expertise and resources to take these matters forward at such a level, and obtain these results.  This circumstance is the result of years of hard work by volunteers leading the organization and a dedicated staff supporting those efforts.  We are very pleased, both with this strong majority decision by the court, and also with the diverse nature of the interveners who participated to argue against mandatory minimum sentencing.  As one can see the NFA is an independent organization that engages in critical analysis to the benefit of firearms owners.  On the Quebec registry decision, we supported the federal government’s position, and in Regina v. Nur, we took a position opposing the federal government.   On both matters our position was upheld as the right one, and we will continue to advocate with vigour for improving the rights of Canadian firearms owners.”

Canada’s National Firearms Association is this country’s largest and most effective advocacy organization representing the interests of firearms owners and users.

-30-

For more information contact:

Solomon Friedman, Lawyer, 613-237-2290  solomon@edelsonlaw.ca
Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682 Blair@nfa.ca
Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841 Sheldon@nfa.ca
Canada’s NFA toll-free number – 1-877-818-0393
NFA Website: www.nfa.ca

Kyrgyzstan Legalizes Firearms Use For Self-Defense

Thursday, April 16th, 2015

Via Radio Free Europe

BISHKEK — Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambaev has endorsed amendments to the country’s Criminal Code allowing individuals to use firearms in self-defense.

The presidential press service said on March 4 the amendments give Kyrgyz individuals the right to use firearms to protect their lives, health, and property against intruders.

The bill was initiated by lawmakers Feliks Kulov, Tatyana Levina, Eristina Kochkarova, Igor Gusarov, and Kanybek Osmonaliev from Ar-Namys (Dignity) party.

They argued that the amendments were needed because of what they called “insufficient measures by the government to protect private property” in Kyrgyzstan.

Ownership of hunting guns with a police-issued permit has been allowed for years in Kyrgyzstan, but their use in self-defense had been forbidden until now.

Charlie Hebdo Massacre: France Gun Control Debate Unlikely To Spring Up After Paris Shooting, Experts Say

Friday, January 9th, 2015

Article via IBT

  @neato_itsdennis on January 08 2015 2:49 PM

Like many European Union nations, France has strict gun-control laws that make it hard for anyone, including law-abiding citizens, to own firearms. And it’s unlikely that will change after three gunmen opened fire at satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo’s office in Paris on Wednesday, killing 12 people, including two police officers.

Gary Mauser, a professor at the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, who has written extensively on European gun control, said any proposals to change France’s gun laws after the massacre probably wouldn’t get very far. “The Europeans are unlikely to change legislation in order to encourage civilians to arm themselves for protection,” he said. “The armed guards at Charlie Hebdo were professionals and they were killed by the terrorists — and without wounding their attackers.”

Mark Barnes, director of the International Association for the Protection of Civil Arms Rights in Washington, D.C., said the gun-control debate is long over for Europe. “It’s certainly a logical question to ask, because it is so engrained in Europe that the state is responsible for protecting its citizens,” said Barnes. “What you have to recognize is that the right to self-defense is shaped much differently in Europe …  It will be interesting to see if this does lead to a legitimate discussion.”

The most recent self-defense debate in France played out in 2013 after a 67-year-old jeweler shot and killed a 19-year-old man who robbed his store at gunpoint and beat him in the process. Stephan Turk, the jeweler, killed Anthony Asli with an unregistered gun and was charged with voluntary homicide for shooting Asli in the back as he ran from the store. Many in France defended Turk.

The right-wing National Front, whose candidate Marine La Pen finished third in the presidential race behind François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012, also defended Turk, saying his decision to defend himself was indicative of a lack of trust “in the state or the forces of order,” according to the New Yorker.

The Charlie Hebdo attack, however, involved illegal guns and probably won’t prompt policy changes, experts said. “Unfortunately, they don’t debate in Europe,” said Gottlieb. “They have no Second Amendment rights or anything like it, so as far as they are concerned, there is no debate.”

Before European gun-rights advocates can even think about repealing strict gun laws in their countries, they have to make the case for having a debate in the first place, he said. “[Those groups] are dealing with being able to just own firearms and trying to make self-defense a legitimate issue,” Gottlieb said. “You don’t just have the laws of individual countries, you have EU laws, too. … Part of the debate is ‘Should the EU get to dictate to countries or should member states be able to decide for themselves?’”

The EU requires member states to have a set of minimum gun-control laws, including stringent background-check laws, to ensure that a gun buyer is “not likely to be a danger to themselves, to public order or to public safety.” The EU considers a conviction for a past violent intentional crime as “indicative of such danger.” Member states are free to enact stricter gun-control laws.

There are an average of 31 guns per 100 people in France, making it the 11th highest in global gun ownership per capita, according to Deseret News. As a general rule, “firearms which have no legitimate sporting or recreational use are not permitted entry into France,” according to the French Embassy in Washington, D.C.

Despite strong gun-control laws across the EU, there is still some appetite for even stricter laws. A 2013 poll found 53 percent of Europeans wanted stricter laws on who can own, buy or sell guns. Roughly 58 percent wanted laws to be more uniform across the bloc. In an op-ed in late 2013, Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet called for more cooperation between EU nations to reduce smuggling by sharing information and closing down smuggling routes.

The gunmen who attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices used AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles, which are some of the cheapest and most ubiquitous assault rifles in the world. An AK-47 typically sells for around $1,100 to $1,800 in France on the black market, according to Bloomberg.

If there arises a debate in France following the Charlie Hebdo attack, said Barnes, it will be over national security and gun trafficking, not gun rights.

 

IAPCAR Representative Addresses UN General Assembly First Committee

Wednesday, October 29th, 2014

UN General Assembly
First Committee
October 28, 2014

[Downloadable PDF of First Committee SAF-IAPCAR Statement]

Statement of the Second Amendment Foundation

I am Julianne Versnel of the Second Amendment Foundation. I would like to address the topic of violence against women and the natural right of self-defense, especially as it pertains to women.

Mr. Chairman, more people die every day from malaria than are murdered by small arms in three days.1

More women and children die from starvation each day than are murdered by small arms in a 15 day period.2

More women die3 each day due to urgent medical care4 being denied them by systems that allow their male relatives to refuse care every day than are murdered by small arms.

More women are living in isolation because of societal ostracization caused by physical and mental disfigurements inflicted on them by men each year than are murdered with small arms. The acid burn victims in India,5 the 12 year old dehumanized brides,6 in Afghanistan, the women raped by armed-gangs in Mexico,7 and the mutilated, and do not forget murdered, victims of honor violence that occurs even in Europe, the Americas and Australia8 are just a few examples of these unspeakable crimes against women.

Gender violence9 often is perpetrated by male familial members of their families who do so with immunity and impunity–and in many instances with governments turning a blind eye,–condoning or even endorsing–the violence. To quote Amnesty International: “Perpetrators of violence against women are rarely held accountable for their acts. Women who are victims of gender-related violence often have little recourse because many state agencies are themselves guilty of gender bias and discriminatory practices. Violence against women is so deeply embedded in society that it often fails to garner public censure and outrage.”10

Mr. Chairman, the United Nations recognizes the right of governments to defend themselves, and to possess the means of doing so. Yet this body perpetuates the situation that keeps the number of women victims growing by denying them, and in fact all human beings, the means to–and decrying even their right to—defend themselves. They are the victims not of small arms, but of political philosophies and state policies that say only governments are worthy of defending themselves. To argue that people have the right to live but not to defend their lives is to argue in favor of continuing to keep women at risk of criminal violence in places where government does little to protect them.

Mr. Chairman, this body must address the right of women to defend themselves and their right to have the physical means–including firearms—of doing so. Or, acknowledge the hypocrisy inherent in proclaiming support for women’s causes while keeping them vulnerable to male-perpetuated criminal violence.11

Thank you.

Endnotes
1. According to UNODC statistics there are 538 homicides worldwide each day. See http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf. There are an estimated 1718 deaths from malaria every day. See http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/ According to UN estimates there will be almost 10,000 cases per week of Ebola. With an anticipated 70% mortality rate, there would be 1000 deaths per day from this disease.
2. According to http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats, 8493 children die each day from hunger.
3. 315 thousand women die in developing countries from hemorrhage at childbirth each year, 863 each day. See http://www.wfp.org/hunger/who-are.This does not include death from disease and other causes where a male family member will not allow a female family member to receive medical care. For example, in some parts of Africa, a midwife cannot even be called to help with a birth without male permission.
4. There are an estimate 2-4 million women with an obstetric fistula in Africa. There are between 50 and 100 thousand more cases per year. This serious medical condition is caused by a lack of essential medical care. See http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/obstetric_fistula/en/
5. There are an estimated one thousand acid attacks each year. See http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/02/acid-victims-crowdfund-treatment/.
6. One in four girls globally are child brides; they are married before the age of 15. These girls are more likely to have a large number of children, a low level of education, and less likely to receive medical care during pregnancy. See http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/Child-Marriage-Brochure-7_17-HR_164.pdf)
7. See http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/mexico-rape-victims-face-prison-time-for-self-defence/ and http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/11/26/machismo-and-old-prejudices-keep-mexican-rape-victims-silent/
8. See http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings. In 2000, the UN estimated that there were approximately 5000 honor murders per year. This figure only includes killings, not mutilation. See http://nypost.com/2014/06/26/honor-killings-daughter-worked-with-feds-to-catch-father-making-threats/, http://www.mapsofworld.com/poll/is-honor-killing-honorable-facts-infographic-text.html
9. “There is one universal truth, applicable to all countries, cultures and communities: violence against women is never acceptable, never excusable, never tolerable.”
United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon (2008)
10. See http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/women-s-rights/violence-against-women/violence-against-women-information for complete quote.
11. Additionally:
• Women are by natural usually pacifists. They are the first to agree to non-violence policies and the first to be victimized by those policies.
• Women are statistically going to be victimized.
• The current policies have created and institutionalized a policy of violence against women.
• There is a cultural norm that allows women to expect safety in public but not in private, and increasingly not even in public.
• Violence against women is female reality. Over the past eight years, at least 40,000 women were killed in India alone in dowry deaths despite several new legislative actions in recent years.
• The lack of access to small arms does not stop violence against women. Rather it enables its escalation as perpetrators know that their victims are unable to defend themselves.
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) are violated by not allowing women a means to self-defense.
• There are numerous other reasons for and causes of femicide: gender selection abortions, female genital mutilation, human trafficking, murder of female babies at birth, etc. that are not addressed.
• It is estimated that 35.6% percent of women globally have experienced physical or sexual violence during their lifetimes. This is more than 1.2 billion women. As the 2011 Global Study on Homicide shows, gender-based violence affects a large number of women worldwide and represents a serious threat to the harmonious development of societies.

 

JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP JOINS INTERNATIONAL COALITION AGAINST GUN CONTROL

Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) announced today that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) have joined the international coalition of 30 associations in 21 countries dedicated to defending civilian firearms rights.

JPFO was founded in 1989 and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews and other minorities have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share the common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies, while advancing liberty for all.

By joining IAPCAR, JPFO will now be able to increase the reach of its activities worldwide.

“We stand for the rights of people in all countries, of any religion or race that wish to exercise their right to use firearms for legitimate purposes, including self-defense,” IAPCAR’s Executive Director Philip Watson said. “I am personally very happy to have JPFO as our newest ally in the fight against totalitarian countries and the United Nations attempts to advance treaties and policies that limit people’s access to the means of the human right of self-defense.

“The addition of JPFO to the IAPCAR coalition is another important step for the preservation of firearms rights in the battle against international gun control forces,” said Alan Gottlieb, IAPCAR’s co-founder and new board member of JPFO.

“Religious minorities have the most to lose when nations start to eliminate the means of self-defense,” Gottlieb said. “We should never forget the past history of genocide when nations disarm their people.”

IAPCAR Director Julianne Versnel, who is also the Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Operations, submitted testimony to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) objecting to not protecting civilian arms rights in the ATT. “Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” Versnel told the delegates.

The IAPCAR civilian arms rights coalition is focused on opposition to the ATT, which has passed the U.N. General Assembly and has been made available for individual countries to ratify. The ATT does not acknowledge or protect civilian arms rights or recognize the right to self-defense in its enforceable language.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (www.iapcar.org) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 30 major gun-rights organizations in 21 countries and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

UN on ‘Collision Course’ with Civilian Arms Rights

Thursday, June 19th, 2014

The United Nations is “on a collision course” with the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and the natural right of all people to defend themselves,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today in a statement to the U.N.’s Programme of Action (POA) meeting in New York.UN Gun Control

SAF Operations Director Julianne Versnel told the committee that “the POA and other UN efforts repeatedly and vociferously discuss gender issues.”

“They acknowledge that women are disproportionally the victims of horrendous violence, sometimes even perpetrated by their own governments or others in power,” Versnel said. “Yet, they turn a blind eye to the reality that women have a right to defend themselves and are capable of doing so. The Programme of Action seems unable to acknowledge anything beyond the simplistic notion that civilian firearms are inherently evil. The right of women, indeed the right of men and women, to self-defense is a human right.”

The U.N. has failed to recognize this human right, she stated, whether it deals with POA activities, the infamous Arms Trade Treaty or even its own Human Rights Council.

“This is not a geographically limited issue and a growing number of organizations consider it vital,” she said. “In fact, the Second Amendment Foundation along 20 other civilian firearms rights groups from six continents came together in 2008 to form the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms (IAPCAR). IAPCAR intends to vigorously pursue the right to self-defense in every possible venue.”

Versnel criticized a 2006 report by Barbara Frey with the UN Human Rights Council that “refused the idea that there is a right to have arms for self-defense and furthermore rejected any concept of self-defense as a human right. It also went on to say that states had a duty to engage in gun control. The kind of gun controls makes self-defense impossible.”

Frey’s report was titled Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons.

“These conclusions were outrageous,” Versnel stated. “These erroneous concepts have spread at the UN. It appears that Peru introduced a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, based on the Frey report that, in essence, demanded that all states institute strict civilian gun control. NGOs are starting to base their opposition to firearms on the Frey report at the expense of recognizing an individual’s right to self-defense.”

While acknowledging that the question cannot be resolved quickly, Versnel promised to “debate this in any venue, at any time, at any place.”

Gunowners in Peru gain small victory against anti-gun odds

Wednesday, May 28th, 2014

Original story via: TheGunMag.com

by Art Merrill

Anti-gun rights and anti-hunting groups from the US and abroad are very active in Central and South America, with the intent to outflank and overrun US gun owners from that direction. But a fledgling movement to fight the complete eradication of hunting and civilian gun ownership in the Southern Hemisphere has succeeded in introducing legislation in Peru to instead expand the rights of owners under a draconian gun control system.

“We achieved a landmark … when a Peruvian congressman introduced a bill favoring the position of the firearms community,” said J. Thomas Saldias, coordinator of the Coalicion por un Peru Libre de Armas ILEGALES (Coalition for a Peru Free of ILLEGAL Firearms). “The bill is significant because it’s the first bill in the region that favors the position of shooters and hunters.”

The bill is a beginning on a very long road to secure some firearms rights that gunowners in the US will find familiar, and some they would consider restrictive and invasive; but in Latin American countries like Peru, where ownership is strictly controlled and limited to only four firearms per person, any inroad at all is a positive step. The bill now before the Peruvian Congress stipulates the establishment of:

• A national registry of convicted felons, with the purpose of denying them possession of firearms, similar to the NICS check in the US;

• Mandatory training for all gun owners, both in firearms handling and in current laws;

• Using the US ATF definition of “antique” and “collectible,” and removing the current requirement that such firearms be de-milled by drilling the chambers;

• A registration card for each firearm with no expiration date;

• A CCW permit, and

• Requiring military members to register their personal firearms with the same government agency as civilians, rather than with their military branch.

Peru is not alone. Other Latin Americans are trying to rally against an organized and methodical assault on gun ownership orchestrated by Oxfam International, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Open Society, the Latin American Parliament (Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms) and the Latin American Coalition for the Prevention of Gun Violence (CLAVE).

“Even some governments, such as the governments of Belgium, UK, Australia, Norway and Sweden have been very proactive in promoting coercive measures in our region,” Saldias said.

According to Saldias, finances for these anti-rights and anti-hunting forces also stream from North American sources, such as: the Rockefeller Foundation; Compton Foundation; John and Catherine McArthur Foundation; Samuel Rubin Foundation, and the Ploughshares Fund.

Saldias said Small Arms Control, with more than 100 member organizations operating offices in 120 countries, is the most active anti-rights group in Mexico. “It is led by Rebecca Peters, an Australian native who moved to New York,” Saldias said. “She is directly funded by [anti-rights billionaire] George Soros.”

Foreign anti-rights influences are so powerful in Latin America that the Coalition had been working since May 2013 to get backing for their bill in the Peruvian Congress. The Coalition finally got in the door of Congressman Juan Carlos Eguren last November and Eguren introduced the bill Mar. 14.

Seeing the bill pass as written may be too much to expect, but its introduction alone is a victory. “The most important thing about this bill is that it reverses a trend that has been always restrictive and confiscatory,” Saldias said.

Brazilian disarmament: an undisputed failure

Wednesday, May 28th, 2014

Brazilian disarmament: an undisputed failure

By Fabricio Rebelo

The public security field should be immune to ideological experiments, because it’s subjects are individuals, the citizens who make up the population of a country. Thus, when the experiment fails, it is this subject that ends up dying, and this is, unfortunately, what’s going on in Brazil again and again.

The country chose the wrong path when it perceived the serious homicidal violence framework in which it was immersed, seeking solutions that were far from the real cause of the problem and that, only, intended to transfer the responsibility for it to society. The results were catastrophic and, today, the Brazilian killer framework is the worst since it began to be measured almost 35 years ago.

The data are available on the 2014 Edition Preview “Map of violence”, the country’s most trusted and who has official recognition by the Ministry of Justice, for it is based on the Mortality information System (SIM), from the Ministry of Health. According to that, the country of the Soccer World Cup and the next Olympic Games has reached, in 2012, the most recent year with recorded data, its absolute annual homicides record: 56,337 victims, with the highest historical rate since the beginning of the registry (in 1980), amazing 29 murders per 100 K inhabitants.

Those are impressive numbers, higher, even, than those of countries at war. The explanation, although it can include more complex aspects, like everything else in public safety, features a predominant factor to the further the severity of the frame: the error of the civilian disarmament.

The disarmament concept was officially introduced in Brazil in 1997, when the first effectively restrictive of gun-bearing law was enacted (bill # 9,437/97), through which the National System of Weapons-SINARM, intended for strict control of legal weapons circulation, was also created. A few years later, at the end of 2003, the law became even more restrictive, with the “Disarmament Statute”, which had as its major goal precisely to reduce the amount of murders in the country. It was, actually, putting into practice of a disarmament ideology drawn up by the UN long before, although without any proven positive example.

Obviously, it was to no avail. The murders, as seen, have not been reduced, but, on the contrary, they’ve reached their highest number, and what was said to be a magic solution became an unquestioned and grandiose failure. Establishing the prohibition of the possession, as well as carry-on, as a general rule, the Disarmament Statute began to take effect in 2004, the year in which 48,374 homicides were recorded in Brazil . Four years later, with the near extinction of the legal arms trade practice, the numbers came to 50,113 (2008) and since then, there have been on a upward climb until the record of 56,337, registered in 2012.

In the same period, the number of registered weapons in the country plummeted. Of the approximately 8 million records that made up the initial SINARM framework, today there are only about 600 K, due to the great restrictions imposed on the citizen, even for the renewal of those permits that already existed. The law thus does not contribute to the reduction of homicides, but it has actually provoked a massive uncontrolled circulation of arms in the country, producing an effect diametrically opposed to the desired one. The practical reality of the ideological disarmament experiment ended up indicating that the reduction of weapons legally in circulation generates an increase in the amount of intentionally violent deaths.

This increase is not hard to understand. The problem is that disarmament policies in Brazil or in other countries, only have the possibility to affect the crimes of passion, those treated in the “Global Study on Homicide-2014” by the UN itself as “interpersonal” crimes”, committed on impulse and for which the legal possession of a firearm could be a facilitator. However, the participation of these crimes in the total amount of homicides in Brazil is minute, as in the country, according to the same study, the predominant cause for murders is the usual practice of criminal activity-homicides related to other criminals activities, namely, the Brazilian murders are in direct relation with other crimes, mainly drug trafficking and theft.

While Brazil insisted on disarmament policies that only made the citizens vulnerable, the country failed to battle the criminal activities of which the murders actually stem. Without being in the focus of public security policies and with society turning gradually helpless, crime was strengthened and, with that, more and more deaths are being recorded.

This framework is extremely worrying. The increased rate of homicides from 2011 to 2012 reached 7% and their absolute number has already settled in 50 Ks for 5 years. If the focus is not changed and public security policies fail to see the responsibly citizen armed as an ally rather than an enemy, the year 2016 might bring some more records to Brazil, however without any connection with the Olympic Games that are going to happen here, but having everything to do with those who, victimized by criminals, won’t be able to attend them.

———————————————-

Fabricio Rebelo, Bachelor of Law, is a researcher in public safety for the Movimento Viva Brazil NGO:  http://www.mvb.org.br/

MANILA: SC gets 2 petitions vs gun control law

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014
By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 03/26/2014 10:09 AM | Updated as of 03/26/2014 10:09 AM

MANILA – Two petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday that seek to nullify certain provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 10591, also known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act of 2013.

The law, signed on May 25, 2013, has become controversial for imposing stricter requirements for obtaining firearm licenses, and stiffer penalties for violators.

The Peaceful Respondent Owners of Guns, Inc. (Progun) filed its petition against the Philippine National Police (PNP), alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the PNP for ordering the centralization of all firearms requirements, testing, and licensing in its headquarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

The group said this is “arbitrary, whimsical, and so difficult to comply with,” considering that there are 1.5 million licensed gun owners in the country spread all over the regions.

Progun also hit the law for being violative of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches, for providing that “all firearms applicants and owners under compulsion to ‘waive’ their right [to] the privacy of their homes and allow the police to enter their dwelling under the guise of inspection.”

Click here to read full story

National gun control lobby pushes for a dangerous weapons search in Tasmania

Friday, March 21st, 2014

Via ABC.NET.AU

The national gun control lobby wants more resources put into finding dangerous weapons hidden in the Tasmanian community.

On Monday police in Devonport seized a semi-automatic assault rifle and other unregistered firearms from a local property.

Only a few assault rifles have been seized in Tasmania since they were outlawed after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

Detective senior sergeant Joanne Stolp says police believe there are more in the community.

“They have just never come to light because either searches haven’t been conducted or people have forgotten about them lying around,” she said.

Roland Browne from Gun Control Australia says police need more resources to find the guns.

“They are liable to be stolen, we can’t rely on people handing them in,” he said.

Police say no semi-automatic rifles have been used in crimes in Tasmania since 1996.

‘Coordinated attacks’ by global anti-gunners gain sweeping victories at America’s doorstep

Tuesday, January 21st, 2014

by Art Merrill | TGM Correspondent (Original Article Via TheGunMag.com)

Meeting fierce opposition on frontal assaults against America’s strong pro-rights defenses, anti-gun forces have successfully penetrated the US back door of Latin American countries, where they intend a domino effect of harsh restrictions and bans to eventually topple gun ownership in the US.

“The anti-gun and anti-hunting groups are well organized and well-funded in the region and they are gaining momentum,” said J. Thomas Saldias, executive director of the Latin American Coalition for Legal Firearms (CALL). “We have already several countries in which hunting has been banned; in the majority, gun ownership is under attack. Unfortunately, we are facing tremendous adversaries with no assistance or funding from the firearms industry.”

Small pro-gun rights groups in seven Latin American nations—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay—have banded together as CALL to raise awareness and fight for gun ownership. According to Saldias, CALL is struggling against the very step-by-step model that anti-gun organizations employ in the US and elsewhere in their goal to eventually completely disarm the civilian populace.

“Their idea is to put up so many barriers that you get tired of fighting,” Saldias said.

The difference is that they are succeeding in Latin America.

Total Bans

Here are some of Saldias’ examples of increasing restrictions Latin American gun owners have recently experienced:

-Peru has limited gun ownership to only four firearms, 2 handguns and two long guns—period.

-Bolivia passed a “temporary” ban on importing firearms and ammunition, and Ecuador then followed suit. Bolivia’s ban is in its third year, but Ecuador dropped the ban.

-In Argentina the government publishes gun owners’ names and addresses on a public access website.

-In Chile, citizens can buy and possess firearms, but all firearms are legally the property of the government, which can recall them at any time by Presidential decree.

-According to the Venezuelan Hunting Federation, before Chavez came to power they used to sell over 20,000 hunting licenses per year; now, that number is less than 1,000.

-Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic have totally banned all hunting.

-Paraguay narrowly missed passing legislation to ban lead hunting ammo and now the same proposal is in front of Argentine legislators. Such a ban would be disastrous. “There are no alternatives to lead ammunition in Latin America,” Saldias said. “A ban would effectively end all hunting.”

No Pro-Rights Lobby

Identical proposed legislation is being repeated in country after country, Saldias said, proving a coordinated attack by organized anti-gun forces.

“In fact,” he said, “once the hunting ban had passed in Costa Rica, immediately the same project was presented in Argentina.”

The anti-rights legislation is being introduced and backed by deep pockets, including IANSA (the international lobbying organization intent on banning all private gun ownership worldwide through the United Nations), several US non-profit foundations and the governments of Australia, Belgium, Norway and the UK, Saldias said.

Latin American citizens are a vulnerable target for anti-gun interests and repressive governments because, Saldias said, they have no pro-gun rights lobbying powers at all.

“No one is lobbying legislators [for pro-gun rights],” Saldias said. Lacking any voice or legal clout, gun owners have no recourse. “Everybody hides, everybody runs away,” he said.

CALL formed in the image of US pro-gun rights groups like SAF to give gun owners a chance to stand their ground and fight back via legal action and lobbying. Lobbying requires money, and many Latin American economies don’t have a large middle class—or any middle class at all—that is typically a major source of donations for pro-rights causes, such as in the US. Without opposition lobbying, the anti-gun factions have made rapid progress infiltrating their agenda into Latin American legislation.

Who Cares?

Why should we care about these internal issues in Latin American countries? After all, we have our own Second Amendment battles to fight here at home. Because apart from pure altruism, the desire to help others fighting the same ideological fight as one’s own, history shows that isolationism ultimately fails 100% of the time. To protect US interests President Monroe in 1823 presented what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, a declaration that any interference into the Americas by European nations would be considered an act of aggression. Whether or not this doctrine is applicable in fact or in principle to the foreign groups and governments orchestrating legislative outcomes in Latin America today, Saldias pointed out the threat to US citizens is very close to home.

“What happens in your own back yard influences you more than when further away,” he said.

Banning gun ownership in Latin America will also have a major economic impact on the US firearms and the outdoors industry, Saldias said. All businesses must either grow, stagnate or wither away; Latin American countries represent vast potential markets for the US outdoors industry, both in direct sales and in the countless additional North American hunters who would outfit themselves to hunt down south if given the opportunity. Because the industry is committed to firearms rights in the US, Saldias hopes that industry leaders will understand the commercial loss and threat to North Americans’ rights if the anti-rights forces completely prevail in Central and South America.

A CALL TO ACTION

According to Saldias, CALL is tackling three serious challenges simultaneously: unifying the many different pro-gun rights groups from the independent Latin American nations; sharing information and human resources among them, and a lack of funds and financial streams. The first two challenges CALL will have to work out on its own. CALL is turning to its northern neighbor for assistance with the third.

“It is to our mutual benefit that the [US outdoors] industry help us,” Saldias pointed out. Without that assistance, the pervasive and accelerating encroachment of total civilian disarmament and criminalizing of hunting now occurring in Latin America will become an enormous political weapon against both the US shooting sports industry and US citizens alike.

CALL is still in its formative stages and debuted in the US at a National Shooting Sports Foundation’s SHOT Show press conference in January 2014. Working with the assistance of Safari Club International (SCI) and the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA), CALL hopes to soon have solid backing from the US outdoors industry in their fight to stop the global anti-gun forces and regain their lost freedoms.

SIDEBAR

CALL’s objectives

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is rapidly succeeding in advancing its agenda to completely disarm all civilians in Latin America by making access to firearms increasingly complex and costly for law-abiding citizens. In response, the Latin American Coalition for Legal Firearms (CALL) has objectives that sound familiar to North American gun owners; among them are:

-To promote education and training in the safe and responsible use of firearms;

-To promote sport shooting and hunting, and wildlife conservation, and

-To promote the universal right to self-defense.

CALL has a facebook community at http://www.facebook.com/armaslegales

SIDEBAR

Who is WFSA?

The World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA) is an international association of about 50 member organizations dedicated to shooting, hunting and pro-gun rights. It is a non-governmental organization (NGO) recognized by the UN Economic and Social Council.

According to information on the WFSA website, “The WFSA is a pro-active advocacy organization, working in concert with international bodies, national governments and regulatory authorities, for the worldwide promotion and preservation of sport shooting activities.” The stated purpose is, “to further the study, preservation, promotion and protection of sport shooting activities on every continent.”

Member groups in the US include the Second Amendment Foundation, Safari Club International, National Rifle Association, National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation. http://www.wfsa.net/

French Gun Rights Group Joins Growing International Coalition Against Gun Control

Tuesday, December 24th, 2013

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) announced today that French gun rights group National Union of Owners Arms Hunting and Shooting (UNPACT) have joined the international coalition of 29 associations in 21 countries dedicated to defending civilian firearms rights.

UNPACT’s membership in the civilian arms rights coalition expands the European membership to eleven groups from eleven different EU and non-EU countries.

“We’re on the side of everyday people in all countries that wish to exercise their right to use firearms for legitimate purposes, including self-defense,” IAPCAR’s Executive Director Philip Watson said. “We’re very pleased to have UNPACT as our newest ally in the fight against extremist groups and individuals attempting to diminish firearms and self-defense rights.”

Gilles Proffit, UNPACT’s Secretary General recently issued a statement critical of an EU ‘White Paper’ proposing new regulatory schemes aimed at curtailing the legitimate ownership of commonly used firearms.

“European citizens cannot and shall not any further trust people, be they designated or elected, who do not trust them,” Proffit said. “They have long memories and will remind voters in all EU countries of this incredible matter in due course every time a national or European ballot comes up.”

IAPCAR and its affiliates issued a call to action last May on the newly proposed EU firearms regulations. The result of public input across Europe was over 92 percent opposed to the new restrictions.

IAPCAR Director Julianne Versnel, who is also the Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Operations, submitted testimony to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) meeting in March objecting to the exclusion of civilian arms rights from the ATT. “Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” Versnel told the delegates.

The IAPCAR civilian arms rights coalition is focused on opposition to the ATT, which has passed the U.N. General Assembly and was made available for countries to sign on June 3. The ATT does not acknowledge or protect civilian arms rights or recognize the right to self-defense in its enforceable language.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (www.iapcar.org) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 29 major gun-rights organizations in 21 countries and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Civilian Arms Rights News: Philippines, Iceland, Uganda

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

Philippines Launches Digital System for Gun Licensing

Iceland:  Despite High Gun Ownership Rate, Police Officers Fatally Shoot Armed Suspect for First Time in Iceland’s History

Uganda:  Senior Lord’s Resistance Army Commander Dead

 

EU fires first salvo for stricter gun control

Thursday, November 14th, 2013

Story via Euro News

(Video available at linked story)

Gun crime is on the rise in Europe with the Schengen open border policy making it easier for criminals to move weapons across the continent.

In addition, Brussels says as many as 500,000 legally registered guns have been lost or stolen.

The European Union wants action, however any tightening of EU gun laws is likely to impact on registered owners.

Europe’s gun lobby is dead set against stricter regulation arguing that criminals already operate outside the law and more stringent measures will in no way stem the flow of black market weaponry.

Gun Trade World Article: Arms Trade Treaty Under Scrutiny

Monday, November 11th, 2013

Feature story in November 2013 print edition of Gun Trade World.

Available online linked here.

THREE GROUPS JOIN GROWING INTERNATIONAL COALITION AGAINST GUN CONTROL

Monday, November 11th, 2013

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) announced today that civilian arms rights groups in the Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus have joined the international coalition of 28 associations in 20 countries dedicated to the preservation and defense of civilian firearms rights.

After meeting in Moscow for the second Right to Arms Congress the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association, Moldova’s Practical Shooting Association, and the Association of Practical Shooting in Belarus agreed join the growing coalition of civilian arms rights organizations.

“The global coalition of like-minded civilian arms rights groups is unified with greater strength in Europe now more than ever before,” IAPCAR’s Executive Director Philip Watson said. “I think most people agree with the right of self-defense, that’s why our coalition just continues to grow.”

The three groups will expand the European membership of IAPCAR to ten groups from ten different EU and non-EU countries.

IAPCAR directors Julianne Versnel and Alan Gottlieb attended and addressed the two day Right to Arms Congress in Moscow Russia held on Oct. 31 and Nov. 1. The conference was hosted by Russia’s IAPCAR affiliate Right to Arms, and featured pro civilian arms rights speakers and exhibitions from Russia and around the world.

A representative to the U.N., Versnel, who is also the Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Operations, submitted testimony to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) meeting in March objecting to the exclusion of civilian arms rights from the ATT. “Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” Versnel told the delegates.

The IAPCAR civilian arms rights coalition is focused on opposition to the ATT, which has passed the U.N. General Assembly and was made available for countries to sign on June 3. The ATT does not acknowledge or protect civilian arms rights or recognize the right to self-defense in its enforceable language.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (www.iapcar.org) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 28 major gun-rights organizations in 20 countries and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Russian Gun Rights Congress

Wednesday, November 6th, 2013

The II Congress of the movement of The Right to Arms was held on Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 2013. IAPCAR Directors Julianne Versnel and Alan Gottlieb attended and addressed the conference. Also in attendance was Gary Burris, President of U.S. IAPCAR affiliate group LSSA. Representatives of various regions of Russia, political parties, countries, associations, and public officials, met to discuss issues of international cooperation, the development of weapons of culture and improvement of state regulation in the field of weapons legislation.

Articles and pictures on the conference also available from the IAPCAR affiliate Right to Arms here and here.

Russian Gun Rights Congress

By Gary Burris, LSSA President

The Lone Star Shooting Association (LSSA) was invited to speak at the All-Russian Gun Rights Congress held in Moscow, Russia, on 31 October 2013. Chairman of that organization, Maria Butina, invited a number of the members of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) to the meeting. Our good friends Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel were there representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) as well as IAPCAR.Right to Arms

Maria asked me to address the Gun Rights Congress on a series of questions regarding American citizens’ gun rights.

Here in the USA we have to constantly be on guard to protect our gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to our Constitution. In my opinion there are three main groups of people who are a threat to our human right of self-preservation and self-defense.

First there is the ignorant group. I believe this to be the largest group and perhaps the easiest to deal with. The people in this group are for the most part well intentioned. They are under the false assumption that if you had laws restricting the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens then violent crimes involving firearms will stop. Logic and statistics will go a long way in correcting this misconception, after all criminals do not obey laws by definition. So, part of the mission of LSSA is to inform the public and educate them in the use of firearms for recreational and self-defense purposes.

The second group is just plain stupid. I once had a boss who told me that you could fix ignorance with education but that you cannot fix stupid. This group is the most dangerous when it comes to attacking our human right to self-preservation. Typically members of this group are liberal politicians who feel the need to impose their will on the people. And of course they have a large following of stupid people.  Even when the majority of citizens who elected them to office are in favor of gun rights, they (being elite and knowing what is best for the masses) will endeavor to remove the citizens’ rights and freedoms “for their own good.” The conclusion is that it is a waste of time to try to deal with this group.

The last group is apathetic. They seem to live in their own world and cannot be bothered with what they consider to be mundane issues that don’t involve them. Often they realize too late that they have lost a freedom by doing nothing. This group is recognizable by their absence from the voting booth. Members of this group are typically young and more concerned about their social media tweet or Facebook image than they are about their right to bear arms. The LSSA youth training program is trying to address this issue.

Now we come to the issues facing Russian citizens. Maria and her organization are doing a great job in their fight for gun rights. This is the current situation for gun owners in Russia:

  • Citizens can own and carry pistols that shoot rubber bullets with up to 91 Joules of energy (non-lethal) but must have permission from the police to carry concealed.
  • Citizens cannot own pistols or revolvers and keep them at home nor can they carry them if they shoot real bullets.
  • Citizens can own and keep at home long guns for self-defense. This includes shotguns, rifles, teargas, non-lethal and air-soft.
  • No specific caliber restrictions but magazine capacity is restricted to 10.
  • A Russian citizen must own a smooth bore long gun for a minimum of 5 years without having any legal issues before he is able to purchase a rifled firearm.

The purchase of firearms by Russian civilians is regulated by a 1996 law “On Weapons.” This law is vague and gaps in the law are covered by orders of the Minister of Interior and government regulations. This creates a bureaucracy of red tape and forms the civilian must navigate in order to purchase a firearm.

Unlike here in the USA where the media is anti-gun for the most part, Russians are fortunate in that the media seems to be neutral on the issue of ownership of firearms by civilians.  Russian media appears to be more representative of the citizens and are therefore eager to learn about the ownership and use of firearms.

It is illegal to advertize firearms in Russia so you will not find a sales brochure insert in your local paper nor will you see anything on TV related to the purchase of firearms. For this reason a large portion of the public is unaware of laws and their rights to own a firearm. And as usual if people are uninformed about their rights to self-defense they tend to oppose ownership of firearms.

So what is the path forward for Russian citizens and what can others do to help them in their quest for the freedom of self-defense? Obviously, Maria and her organization must continue with their efforts. Several powerful Russian politicians were in attendance at the Gun Rights Congress and support Maria’s work. This is a great step in the right direction because gun rights are clearly political issues around the world.  Recognizing that self-preservation is a human right is the first step in securing the right of self-defense.

I noted that there have been some IPSC and IDPA matches in Russia.  IPSC tends to be run and gun where IDPA is more practical.  LSSA is a combination of the two with fewer rules, easier scoring system and a lot of fun. I would like to see shooting clubs in Russia start holding LSSA 3-gun matches. Take the example of Italy that held over 50 LSSA matches last year.  Some were shotgun or rifle only and others were a combination of the two.  In the coming year they will hold pistol only and a combination of all three types of guns in the same match.  LSSA even has a set of rules for air-soft matches. Rules are very simple and membership is only 5 Euros per year. Additionally, LSSA was able to prevent the Italian bill 29/2012 from becoming law that would have restricted ownership of military look alike firearms, i.e. the AR-15. Because we used these firearms in shooting competitions we were able to show that they are used for sporting activities and should not therefore be restricted. The proposed law was withdrawn from consideration by the Italian authorities.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (http://iapcar.org/) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 25 major gun-rights organizations and conducts operations designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Main Conference

Alan Gottlieb, SAF, CCRKBA, IAPCAR

Julianne Versnel, SAF, IAPCAR

Gary Burris, LSSA

Alexander Torshin, First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council

IAPCAR Directors to speak at conference on international experience in the area of regulation of civilian weapons and justified self-defense

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

31 October – 1 November, 2013

Location: event-hall «InfoSpace»

Moscow, 1 Zachatievskiy lane 4

Metro Kropotkinskaya, Park Kultury

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD INFO AND AGENDA (Adobe Acrobat Reader Required)

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders ‘Armed Citizenry’

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013

Original Story Via ABC News

By

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Noble’s comments came only moments after the official opening of the 82nd annual gathering of the Interpol’s governing body, the General Assembly. The session is being held in Cartagena, Colombia, and is being used to highlight strides over the last decade in Colombia’s battle against the notorious drug cartels that used to be the real power in the country.

FULL ARTICLE AVAILABLE HERE: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341&singlePage=true

Over 100 Women Take Up Arms in Mexico to Defend Community

Thursday, August 22nd, 2013

Via:  Latin American Herald Tribune

The women signed up over the past four days with the UPOEG, Xaltianguis community self-defense force commander Miguel Angel Jimenez said

MEXICO CITY – More than 100 women in the southern Mexican town of Xaltianguis have taken up arms to protect their community from organized crime groups, a local self-defense force official said Monday.

The women signed up over the past four days with the Union of Peoples and Organizations of Guerrero State, or UPOEG, Xaltianguis community self-defense force commander Miguel Angel Jimenez told reporters.

“We have an average of nine groups” of community police, with each one made up of 12 women who will work in the daytime in the neighborhoods of Xaltianguis, located about 50 kilometers (31 miles) from the resort city of Acapulco, Jimenez said.

[Click here to view full article]

Taking Stock of the UN Arms Trade Treaty

Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

The Arms Trade Treaty As Gateway Framework For National Small Arms Control And Disarmament

By Jeff Moran | Geneva

(c) Jeff Moran

Image: (c) Jeff Moran

On 20 June Ambassador Roberto Moritán (Argentina), the former President of the 2012 UN ATT Conference and Chairman of the pre-negotiations process, spoke as part of a public briefing on the ATT at the United Nations in Geneva titled “The Arms Trade Treaty: Past, Present, Future.”

Amb. Moritán explained the ATT should not be seen as a static treaty, like others within the traditional arms control and disarmament field.  Instead, he explained that the ATT is best understood as an ongoing process and a framework…dynamic and expandable with amendments and additional protocols perhaps.  Additional protocols were understood to mean distinct treaties negotiated in addition to the ATT.  An example of a disarmament treaty with additional protocols of would be the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Expanding on this theme, Amb. Moritán stated the current “scope,” “parameters,” and “criteria” within the existing treaty “need additional negotiation.”  In particular, he said the scope of the treaty should be expanded over time in light of technological developments, and cited scientific achievements in robotics as one reason for this.  He concluded by stating “the ATT has to lead to negotiations in conventional weapons.  Negotiations of conventional weapons cannot continue to be a taboo in the United, Nations.”

If the ATT is to become a broader framework for ongoing negotiations on conventional arms control and disarmament, it is only a matter of time before the volume of the UN small arms control discussion turns up.  This was hinted at during the follow-on presentation by Sarah Parker of the Small Arms Survey, the UN’s go-to resource for small arms control research and policy development.

Ms. Parker presented a PowerPoint version of a report she published earlier this month called: “The Arms Trade Treaty: A Step Forward in Small Arms Control?”.  She explained in her report that while “the ATT has contributed several missing pieces to the framework of controls governing the international transfer of small arms,” it nonetheless has “provisions that are, in many cases, weaker than existing commitments on small arms transfers agreed more than a decade ago.”  The key takeway: the ATT needs more work with respect to controlling and documenting international small arms transfers at the very least.

But normative developments within the ATT and broader small arms process framework will not likely be limited to controlling and documenting international small arms transfers.  Given the history of the ATT negotiations and the small arms process, restrictions on transfers of small arms to “non-state actors” or “private actors” (diplomatic homonyms that often mean rebel groups, private corporations, or individuals) will probably reappear on the UN agenda through implementation and expansion of the ATT framework.  So might global restrictions in the form of national controls on civilian access or even outright prohibitions on civilian possession of certain types of small arms.

In this direction, a coalition of UN agencies and contracted small arms control advocates have been quietly developing a series International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) since 2008.  Some ISACs were released last year, but the project coordinator reports remaining ones are going to be released this year.  Privately, diplomats and ISACS advocates confirm that these will be “of use” and that many states hope a critical mass of these standards become the basis for future negotiations to amend the ATT.  Amendments to the ATT can be voted on six years after the instrument enters into force, and during meetings of States Parties only every third year thereafter.  Decisions on amendments will not be made by consensus, but through a three-fourths majority vote of States Parties in the room.

Two ISACS are thought to be of particular interest to those seeking to amend the ATT.  The first is ISACS number 03.20, “National Controls Over The International Transfer Of Small Arms And Light Weapons.”  Among other things, 03.20 has a provision that prohibits international transfers to private actors without “end-user certification.”  The second is ISACS number 03.30,“National Controls Over the Access of Civilians to Small Arms and Light Weapons.”  Among other things, 03.30 requires national registration of firearms and owners, prohibitions on civilian  possession of certain weapons Americans can already legally and legitimately possess with additional licensing, and even has language advocating for national home inspections of private gun collections for “safety compliance.”  This second standard was written by Dr. Ed Laurance, who is a former strategic planner for IANSA.  IANSA stands for the International Action Network on Small Arms, which, according to page 3 of its foundation document, is committed to “reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.”  (More information on draft versions of ISACS 03.30 and 03.20 and other ISACS involving national controls can be found here.)

If the ATT negotiations to date and the 112 signatories to the 2006 Geneva Declaration are any indicator, most if not a three-quarters majority of UN member states would endorse “private actors,” “end-user certification,” and “civilian access” appearing on the UN’s small arms control and disarmament agenda with the ATT.  In fact, Ms. Parker, along with her colleague Markus Wilson, even suggest in their small arms process guide for diplomats that a prohibition on transfers to private or non-state actors and prohibitions on civilian possession would have already become established, if not binding, international norms by now were it not for the singular opposition of the United States during the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, which resulted in the politically binding Program of Action (PoA).

Of course, the ATT can and should do much good to help establish badly needed  import/export controls with respect to conventional weapons in States currently lacking them.  The ATT should also and rightly compel appropriate humanitarian criteria into exporting State decision making where such criteria are missing or weak.  But can anybody deny at this point that the ATT is also a giant milestone towards global small arms control and disarmament, toward “reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies?”  The truth is that a legally binding ATT, among other things, can and most likely will be revised and expanded to substantially achieve all that the politically-binding PoA was hoped to achieve but hasn’t, and then some.

At bottom, if the US is already the “gold standard” in terms of export controls and already applies humanitarian criteria in international weapons transfers, why again is it so imperative the US sign the ATT?   Some key diplomats suggest the US signature is necessary to create a symbolic demonstration of communitarian international engagement, and that this would help encourage other key states to do the same.  But if the American payment terms for signing and ratifying the ATT include a balloon payment 6 years from entry into force ultimately requiring a roll-back of American civil arms rights and privileges, perhaps the US ought not sign the treaty after all.  Instead, perhaps the US and other states should focus less on international trade controls and focus more on addressing root causes of armed violence in the developing or fragile states most affected by it, namely, lack of rule of law, weak if not incompetent local governance, and corruption.  Even Sarah Parker has apparently, finally, admitted in the conclusion of her aforementioned report:

“Small arms related problems have less to do with inadequate international transfer controls and more to do with controlling small arms already within their territories.” 

Ms. Parker’s remark is supported by prior research making the stronger point that, in fact, for most countries around the globe, particularly for most developing or fragile states, a combination of deficient domestic regulation of legal firearms possession with theft, and loss or corrupt sale from official inventories is a more serious problem than illicit trafficking across borders.[*]  Though the timing of Ms. Parker’s apparent admission (after the conclusion of the ATT negotiations) may raise certain ethical questions to some, her acknowledgement is nonetheless welcomed by this author in the spirit of it being better late than never.

Note

[*] This author first called attention to the apparent overselling of the ATT’s benefits in this regard in 2012. See http://tsmworldwide.com/dishonest-humanitarianism/ at notes 17, 18, and 19, which address research invalidating the overhyped claim by many ATT proponents, including the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, that there was ever and still is a large problem of international trafficking of small arms.  Real scholarship shows, contrary to ATT advocacy campaigning message, that the problem of international trafficking of small arms is actually quite small, and isolated to specific troubled states or sub-regions.  Key source:  Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh, eds. Small Arms, Crime and Conflict: Global Governance and the Threat of Armed Violence. Routledge: 2012. P. 90-91.

About The Author

Jeff Moran lives in Geneva, Switzerland and is a consultant specializing in the ethical and responsible development  of the international defense, security, and shooting sports industries at TSM Worldwide LLC.  Previously Mr. Moran was a strategic marketing leader for a multi-billion dollar business unit of a public defense & aerospace company and an American military diplomat.  He is currently studying weapons law within the Executive LL.M. Program of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.  Mr. Moran has an Executive Master in International Negotiations and Policymaking from the Graduate Institute of Geneva, an MBA from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, and a BSFS from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.

Distribution  Notices

© TSM Worldwide LLC.  Online republication and redistribution are authorized when this entire publication (including title, byline, images, notes, hyper-links, and distribution note) and linkable URL  http://tsmworldwide.com/taking-stock-of-the-arms-trade-treaty/ are included.  See other published items at http://tsmworldwide.com/category/published/

Israel: Taking Away the Licensed Guns

Monday, July 1st, 2013

Original Story Via: Yeshiva World Israel

When licensed gun owners in Israel receive their renewal, they are now informed they will have to justify the reason for holding a handgun. Minister of Public Security Yitzchak Aharonovich and others appear determined to reduce the number of handguns held by citizens.

That means if one was granted a handgun license because one lives in a community in Yehuda and Shomron, and one then moves over the Green Line to “Israel proper”, one may lose the handgun license. It does not matter if a gun holder is a soldier or officer serving in the IDF reserves, he will lose his weapon.

Unlike in some countries when one is given a license and one can purchase handguns, in Israel, it is a license for a specific handgun and only for that handgun. In addition to losing a licensed weapon, there will be a financial loss as well for a pistol such as a Glock ® which can cost upwards of 5,000 NIS in Israel will then have to be forfeited or sold. A store buying a second hand weapon realizing the owner must sell is unlikely to pay a fair market value for the weapon. As more and more people are compelled to get rid of their weapons, there will be a surplus of handguns, resulting in the value dropping even more.

The recent shooting spree in a Beersheva bank that left a number of people dead was carried out by a veteran of the military, a decorated officer, and this significantly boosted the voice of gun control advocates, who are not pleased that less handguns will be held in Israel.

Opponents insist that statistically speaking, the incidents of such events involving licensed handgun owners are miniscule – explaining there is no justification to confiscate licensed weapons from law abiding citizens. These people explain this is not the United States but the Mideast and having a handgun is wise and perhaps even essential.

(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/174042/Israel%3A-Taking-Away-the-Licensed-Guns.html

A warning from Brits on gun ban

Friday, June 7th, 2013

Via:  Philly.com

By Alan Gottlieb

When the British newspaper the Telegraph asked readers which of six suggested measures they would like to see introduced in the House of Commons, the response was surprisingly tilted toward one significant proposal.

Of the six suggestions, which included setting a flat tax and placing a term limit on the office of prime minister, what drew more than 86 percent of reader support was a proposal to repeal the handgun ban of 1997. This is an unscientific poll, but the results should signal to U.S. gun prohibitionists that their habitual use of the United Kingdom as an example of domestic tranquility where guns are concerned just took a direct hit in the credibility department.

Full article available at:  http://articles.philly.com/2013-06-06/news/39791252_1_handgun-ban-alan-gottlieb-flat-tax


Alan Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

U.S. skips signing ceremony for U.N. arms treaty

Monday, June 3rd, 2013

Original Story Via:  The Washington Times

The White House stepped back from its open support for the U.N. arms treaty, deciding not to attend a public signing ceremony for the document in New York on Monday morning after all.

The United Nations was hosting a 10:30 a.m. ceremony with representatives from the United Kingdom, France, Mexico, the Democratic Republic of Congo and roughly 60 other nations to sign the international weapons treaty. But the U.S. decided not to show, according toBloomberg.

“I suspect they probably took a decision that, politically, it made sense not to completely alienate people in Congress on something that, in their opinion, doesn’t matter when they sign it as long as they sign it,” said Adotei Akwei, Amnesty International USA’s managing director for government relations.

The treaty, decried by the National Rifle Association’s 4.5 million members as an infringement to the Second Amendment, isn’t likely to pass the Senate. President Obama was the first president to support it, but isn’t rushing to sign it, given its controversy and his need to generate enough political capital for its ratification in the Senate.

“We are conducting a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty,” said Laura Lucas, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council.

Mr. Akwei said the tone for the treaty among politicos on Capitol Hill was “absolutely toxic” and that U.S. ratification is a “long-term strategy” that can take up to 15 years, Bloomberg reported.

Via:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/3/us-skips-signing-ceremony-un-arms-treaty/

US State Dept. Press Release: “US Welcomes Opening of Arms Trade Treaty for Signature”

Monday, June 3rd, 2013

Press Statement

John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 3, 2013

 

The United States welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature, and we look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.

The Treaty is an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights. The Treaty will require the parties to implement strict controls, of the kind the United States already has in place, on the international transfer of conventional arms to prevent their diversion and misuse and create greater international cooperation against black market arms merchants. 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.

We commend the Presidents of the two UN negotiating conferences – Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina and Peter Woolcott of Australia –for their leadership in bringing this agreement to fruition. We also congratulate all the states that helped achieve an effective, implementable Treaty that will reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes.

Britain wants its guns back

Thursday, May 30th, 2013

A Daily Telegraph online poll has revealed that over 80 percent of Brits would rather a repeal on the hand gun ban over various other “new law” choices

Article Via The Commentator

by The Commentator on 29 May 2013 Union_Jack

Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain’s most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members’ Bill in the UK’s Parliament.

Private Members’ Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the ‘greening’ of public spaces and the repealing of Britain’s hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as “Colliemum” asked, “…why should only criminals be ‘allowed’ to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?”

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

British versus American statistics perhaps displays nothing more than one country investing more in the government response to criminality, while the other maintains a citizen-based response.

Two other options were presented in the Telegraph poll, which were the closing of the child maintenance loophole and a banning of spitting in public. The full results as of 01:36am on Wednesday 29th May, can be seen on the right.

For an up to date look at the poll, click through to the Telegraph’s website, here.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back

In tense Mexico state, vigilantes refuse to drop guns

Thursday, May 23rd, 2013

Original Story Via:  za.news.yahoo.com

Farmers wearing bulletproof jackets and toting assault rifles ride in pick-up trucks emblazoned with the word “self-defense” to protect this rural western Mexico town from the Knights Templar drug cartel.

The federal government deployed thousands of troops to the state of Michoacan this week, but in some towns like Coalcoman, population 10,000, vigilantes are refusing to put down their weapons until they feel safe again.

“We won’t drop our guard until we see results,” Antonio Rodriguez, a 37-year-old avocado grower and member of the community force, told AFP.

Last week, Coalcoman residents packed the main square to give their support to the 200-strong vigilante patrol, making it the latest Michoacan town to take up arms in recent months to fight off the extorsion and violence perpetrated by gangsters.

The town lies in a region called Tierra Caliente, or Hot Land, known as a hotbed of cartel activity.

The vigilantes carry handguns and hunting rifles, but a few were seen Wednesday roaming around with AR-15 semi-automatic rifles. In other towns many wear masks to protect their identities.

“We got tired of paying the quota,” said Adriana, a 32-year-old woman working in a pharmacy.

The “cuota” is extorsion money charged by the Knights Templar every week or month from business owners, farmers, taxi drivers and even mayors.

“The one who didn’t pay would be kidnapped and ‘bang, bang,’ they’d kill him,” said Adriana, squeezing her finger as if pulling a trigger.

In recent months, the self-defense groups detained people they accused of working with the cartels and clashed with drug traffickers. The gangsters responded by besieging towns and preventing food deliveries.

Michoacan was the first state to see troops when then president Felipe Calderon deployed soldiers and marines across the nation to crack down on cartels in 2006.

But gang violence surged throughout Mexico, leaving 70,000 people in its wake by the time Calderon left office in December, and a powerful new cartel, the Knights Templar, emerged in Michoacan.

The government of President Enrique Pena Nieto sent around 4,000 soldiers and marines this week along with 1,000 federal police, vowing that they would stay until peace is restored in the troubled state.

Military surveillance planes fly over towns while soldiers man checkpoints in Tierra Caliente. But self-defense groups still staff their own road blocks in some parts despite the military presence.

“They should first disarm organized crime, then the people,” said a young man wearing a bulletproof jacket and a white T-shirt inscribed with the words “self-defense group” in the back.

Late Tuesday, a vigilante patrol detained one man they accused of being a thief in Coalcoman. He was beaten and paraded in the town square with a bloody face in front of residents a dozens of federal police.

The road linking Coalcoman to the village of Buenavista is littered with the charred remains of buses and other vehicles that were used by the Knights Templar to block the delivery of food, medicine and other goods.

At the entrance of Buenavista, a sign greets drivers with the words: “Welcome to the village of Buenavista, free of quotas and Knights Templar.”

A checkpoint was installed on a white altar with a red cross that was built by the Knights Templar on the side of the road in honor of Nazario Moreno, alias “El Chayo,” a drug lord that the government believes was killed in a clash in 2010.

His body was never found and the religion-inspired Knights Templar revere him like a saint. The words “Saint Nazario” are painted on the Buenavista altar, which is riddled with bullet marks.

Buenavista’s vigilantes said the area became safer once they took up arms. They just want the authorities to get rid of the cartel.

“If they want, we’ll take them to the town, street, gully or lair where they’re hiding,” said one of the armed civilians.

The Knights Templar cartel has accused the vigilantes of being backed by their enemies, the Jalisco Nueva Generacion cartel, which is linked to the Sinaloa syndicate led by Mexico’s most wanted man, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

The cartel, which is an offshoot of the faded crime syndicate La Familia Michoacana, describes itself as an “insurgent” group. Its members must follow an honor code based on the group’s interpretation of religion.

The self-defense militias deny any links to narco-traffickers, but Defense Minister Salvador Cienfuegos suggested on Tuesday that some were getting support from dubious groups.

http://za.news.yahoo.com/tense-mexico-state-vigilantes-refuse-drop-guns-194140641.html

NMLRA Speaks Out at UN

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

Via: TheGunMag.com

by James C. Fulmer | Past President, NMLRA

Becky Waterman, NMLRA president, speaking at the UN.

Becky Waterman, NMLRA president,
speaking at the UN.

The National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. Founded in 1933 during the Great Depression, the NMLRA has grown and changed with the times, moving into the 21st century while holding on to the past. The NMLRA continues to promote this country’s firearm heritage through shooting, hunting and competition with muzzleloading rifles, pistols and shotguns. Last year during the September NMLRA Board of Directors’ meeting the directors voted in the first woman president of the NMLRA, Becky Waterman. She was born into an NMLRA family and grew up living and breathing muzzleloading firearms and American heritage.

During the 2013 SHOT Show in Las Vegas, as newly elected president of NMLRA, Becky met with Tom Mason, secretariat of the World Forum on Shooting Activities in America (WFSA).

The NMLRA is an associate member of the WFSA and has worked with them in the past. Here the NMLRA again offered to give any assistance to the WFSA.

The WFSA is an association of hunting, shooting and industry organizations.

For over 15 years the WFSA and its member associations have attended every major UN conference affecting hunting or sport shooting. The WFSA is an official United Nations Non-governmental Organization (NGO) recognized by the Economic and Social Council of the UN General Assembly. It is one of the few NGOs in the world to be invited to speak before one of the five committees of the UN General Assembly.

When the WFSA asked the NMLRA to speak at the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty on March 21, the NMLRA didn’t hesitate to represent and defend the muzzleloading shooting sport at the world level.

NMLRA President Rebecca Waterman and NMLRA Managing Director Morgan Mundell made the trip to the UN in New York City. Here late Thursday afternoon with many other members of WFSA the president of the NMLRA presented the following remarks before the UN: “Mr. President, I am Rebecca Waterman, President of the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, an association member of World Forum on Shooting Activities. Our primary membership is in the United States, but I believe I speak for the many, many users of antique and muzzle loading arms in other jurisdictions.

“Mr. President, I will be extremely brief. I wish to address the question of the inclusion of antique firearms and their replicas, which most muzzleloaders are, within the scope of the ATT.

“Mr. President, there is no need or justification for the inclusion of antique firearms within the category of small arms. There is substantial international commerce in antique firearms and their replicas, but by no stretch of the imagination are they some kind of threat that should be included within the ATT.

“Mr. President, examining the record, we have not found one mention of antique firearms and their replicas being perceived as a threat.

“Mr. President, subjecting the international commerce in antique firearms and their replicas to an ATT will be an unjustified and unnecessary burden on that commerce.

“Indeed, Mr. President, this very issue was addressed during the drafting of the UN Firearms Protocol.

Article 3 (a) excludes antique firearms from the Protocol. It says, and I quote, ‘Antique firearms and their replicas shall be defined in accordance with domestic law. In no case, however, shall antique firearms include firearms manufactured after 1899.’ “Mr. President, we have submitted a version of this Firearms Protocol language to effectuate the exclusion of antique firearms and their replicas from the ATT.

“We sincerely hope that you and this body will follow the precedent of the Firearms Protocol.” The UN Arms Trade Treaty was followed by the media. The Shooting Wire, The Outdoor Wire, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and many, many others including this publication. They all gave excellent coverage to the treaty in many press releases. The sad part about all this is why would the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association even have to attend? Why has common sense become so un-common? In the treaty itself it reads, “This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories: Battle Tanks; Armored combat vehicles; Large-caliber artillery systems; Combat aircraft; Attack helicopters; Warships; Missiles and missile launchers; and small arms and light weapons.”

Why would it be so hard to separate out antique or replica muzzleloading firearms from other modern military small arms and light weapons?

The Treaty will be talked about and discussed by everybody over the next few weeks. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Senior Vice-President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane stated, “We hope that the Members of the US Senate are closely watching the White House abandon its principles and promises in the rush to ramrod the flawed treaty into effect.

Not only will they later be asked to ratify this attack on our constitution and sovereignty, but they will also be lavished with new promises from the administration in its drive to push a broad gun control agenda through the US Senate when it returns from recess. They would be right to question those promises strongly.”

What this all means to the reader is be informed! Read, watch, listen, get your facts and act. I am sure in the next few weeks you will be asked to contact your state senator. Do it! This is not about letting the other person do it; you are the other person. If you are reading this and don’t vote, change that: get registered—your vote counts. Talk to everybody you know, and if they are not registered to vote, get them registered. It is time for common sense. It is time for action.

 

Call to action in the EU

Tuesday, May 21st, 2013

Italian IAPCAR member group FISAT, has sent an important call to action.

Attempts are underway by the European Union to further restrict the right of civilians to have certain firearms.

It is vitally important to the firearms rights community stand together internationally.

There are three important things we can each do: 

1.       Read the alert from FISAT below and follow the instructions to participate in the EU survey.

2.       Post this alert on your website and send it to all of your members and supporters.

3.       Ask all your supporters to send this call to action to all of their friends.

I personally want to thank all of you for your unwavering support of civilian arms rights. It is a privilege to work with you.

– Philip Watson, IAPCAR Executive Director

 

[Important Message Below Via FISAT President Simone Ciucchi]

Dear friends and gun rights activists,

Joining the call of British Shooting Sports Council we ask to IAPCAR and all gun rights association in its organization, to participate to the online survey organized by European Union Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom.

The menace to semiautomatic firearms in private hands is IMMINENT, as the online survey maliciously suggests a possible link between private possession of firearms and their use for criminal or terrorist purposes, being nothing else than another attempt to disarm honest citizens for the sake of added “firearms security”.

The questions are utterly misleading.

Question C.2 suggests that the list of prohibited firearms should be extended (it is understood that the Commission is referring to semiautomatic rifles and possibly also to semiautomatic shotguns and handguns).

Question C.4 pursues the mandatory use of locking devices in firearms (imagine the impact if this was made retrospective).

Question C.7 would provide a justification to introduce compulsory mental health tests and suppress the current derogation that allows people under the age of 18 to hunt and sport-shoot if they have parental permission or guidance.

We can expect for sure that the various anti-gun EU associations will take action to orchestrate a deliberate number of answers resulting in a public call for tighter gun control.
Deadline for participation is June 17th 2013.         

This can’t happen and we ask you to take part to the online survey in the following steps:

Please follow the following steps:

  1. Go to:  http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk
  2. Choose your language in the icon that is in the upper right part of the screen.
  3. Indicate your country, whether you are an individual or an organization and your name or the name of your organization.
  4. Answer the questions by clicking on option “1” for each one of them. You do not need to answer the optional questions that request additional comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6).
  5. After having answered the questions, as a security measure to avoid computer-generated replies, you will have to type in the numbers and/or letters that will be displayed in your screen and validate them.
  6. Your answers will have been submitted by then. You can view them and/or save them as a PDF.

All of the European associations, especially Swedish ones, can contact the proposer of this survey in the person of European Commissioner Ms. Cecilia Malmstrom which can be contacted at these sites, possibly to explain her that firearms of private honest citizens are not to be confused with the ones of criminals and terrorists:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/contact/contact-me_en.htm

https://twitter.com/malmstromeu

https://www.facebook.com/MalmstromEU

Swedish citizens in particular can also contact her party, Folkpartiet liberalerna (Liberal People’s Party), to let them know what you think, at the following site and email:

http://www.folkpartiet.se/    —  info@folkpartiet.se

While EU citiziens can contact Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (A.L.D.E.):

http://web.cor.europa.eu/alde/contact-us/Pages/default.aspx

Asking their respective national parties NOT to support Maelmstrom initiatives, you can find various parties members of ALDE at the following page:

http://www.alde.eu/alde-group/alde-across-europe-map-member-state/

We thank you for your help, immediate action is necessary for the protection of our common gun rights.

Best regards,

Simone Ciucchi – FISAT President

May 2013

Bologna, Italy

 

—Additional Message Below Via BSSC President David Penn—

 

Via:  The British Sports Shooting Council (BSSC)

EU Public Consultation on firearms

This EU Consultation Document on a common approach to reducing the harm caused by criminal use of firearms in the EU can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk

It is one part of a number of EU firearms-related initiatives, including the ratification by the EU of the UN Vienna Firearms Protocol, the much-publicised comments by EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström suggesting a link between legal ownership of firearms and illicit trafficking, the preparation of a report by the Commission on possible further amendments to the EU Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons and of course the EU’s active role in the UN’s recent adoption of a text for an Conventional Arms Trade Treaty.

The intention of this consultation is to obtain some appearance of legitimacy for further restrictions on the legal ownership, use and acquisition of firearms by civilians. We may anticipate that organisations opposed to recreational firearms use, hunting or gun collecting will orchestrate large numbers of replies. It is therefore essential that shooting organisations and their individual members complete and submit responses to provide an effective counter-argument and counter-weight. If the majority of responses are supportive of our interests, it would be difficult for the Commission to use public opinion as a reason for seeking further restrictions.

The deadline for replies is the 17th June 2013.

All the questions have at least some relevance to legal ownership. Most of the questions are biased and are written in a way that seeks to pre-determine the response and push the respondent into agreeing that some EU action is needed even though national legislation on all issues addressed in the questions already exists.

Question C.2 suggests that the list of prohibited firearms should be extended (it is understood that the Commission is referring to semiautomatic rifles and possibly also to semiautomatic shotguns and handguns).

Question C.4 pursues the mandatory use of locking devices in firearms. Imagine the impact if this was made retrospective.

Question C.7 would provide a justification to introduce compulsory mental health tests and suppress the current derogation that allows people under the age of 18 to hunt and sport-shoot if they have parental permission or guidance. This derogation was hard-won with Britain taking a leading role in negotiating it. If this were lost it would be a severe blow to the future of our sport.

Question C.8 aims at requiring that all firearms and ammunition be subject to authorisation, which would have negative implications not only in countries where there is a formal distinction between authorisation and declaration of firearms but also in countries where there are flexible arrangements for certain hunting firearms. In Britain, it could result in the introduction of tighter controls on shotguns and shotgun cartridges.

Question D.2 could result in a general requirement to store firearms in an approved safe. What would happen if the EU specification for a gun cabinet exceeded the British Standard currently the norm in Britain?

It is not necessary to answer the optional questions that request additional free-text comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6). It is necessary to click on Option 1 in response to all the multiple choice questions. While this may seem extreme in some instances, the questions are biased and are designed to elicit your agreement that action by the EU is necessary.

If you do decide to make further comments, you may wish to consider referring to the EU principle of ‘subsidiarity’, enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas that fall within its exclusive competence), unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. Civilian firearms control is most appropriately dealt with at national level, given the variety of shooting and hunting traditions among the member states.

Please follow the following steps:

1.Go to http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk

2.Choose your language in the icon that is in the upper right part of the screen.

3. Indicate your country, whether you are an individual or an organisation and your name or the name of your organisation.

4. Answer the questions by clicking on option “1” for each one of them. You do not need to answer the optional questions that request additional comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6).

5. After having answered the questions, as a security measure to avoid computer-generated replies, you will have to type in the numbers and/or letters that will be displayed in your screen and validate them.

6. Your answers will have been submitted by then. You can view them and/or save them as a PDF.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this consultation.

David Penn
Secretary, British Shooting Sports Council
23/4/2013

The Real Truth About Gun Homicides

Monday, May 20th, 2013

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) global map of homicide rate shows lower rates in countries with higher gun ownership.

 

Source UNODC

Source UNODC

Brazil: Disarmament Failed

Monday, May 20th, 2013
Veículo: A Tribuna / Veiculação: On-linewww.mvb.org.br/noticias/index.php?&action=showClip&clip12_cod=1647

Bene Barbosa, of Movimento Viva Brasil, criticizes the Disarmament Statute and blames impunity for the high levels of violence in Brazil

“Disarmament is a false promise“, says the Barbosa, a specialist in public security and President of Movimento Viva Brasil.

In an interview to the journal A Tribuna, he talked about the raise in the number of homicides, impunity and the total failure of civil disarmament.

He pointed out that the 2013 Brazilian Violence Map demonstrates that in a 30 year period, the deaths involving firearms went up by 346%.

Most of the firearms used in crime are not registered with the government, which alone raises questions about the effectiveness of the Brazilian Disarmament Statute, which will have its 10th anniversary this year.

A TRIBUNA – How do you evaluate the 2013 Brazilian Violence Map, recently made available?

BENE BARBOSA – The Map shows a significant increase in the number of homicides, largely influenced by impunity and drugs. This demonstrates that the national public security policy, based soley on civil disarmament measures, has failed in combating the issue of violence.

A TRIBUNA – What effect does the Disarmament Statute have in relation to public security and violence?

BENE BARBOSA – Absolutely nothing. The Disarmament Statue is totally ineffective when it comes to reducing the violence levels. In fact, we have recently been in Brasilia to propose a new piece of legislation which guarantees the Brazilian Citizen’s right to defend himself. If the criminals are able to use guns, why not the honest citizens? It is not fair to preclude the working man or woman to keep and bear arms to defend himself and his family, when the police is not able to provide security 24 hours a day.

A TRIBUNA – Why did the murder rate go up after the Disarmament Statue was enforced, instead of going down?

BENE BARBOSA – Because the Disarmament Statute guarantees more safety to criminal activities. If a bandit invades a house, the chance he will face armed resistance is much smaller, creating an incentive for all types of criminal activities. The Disarmament Statute only targets the legal firearms, bought by honest, law abiding citizens. Our current gun law has disarmed the working man and woman, but has not affected the criminals, whom carry on buying their guns on the streets, without any restrictions.
A TRIBUNA – What is the main cause for the increase in homicides?

BENE BARBOSA – Certainly, impunity. Of every 100 murders, only 8 are punished. This is the greatest incentive for criminals, who know that in Brazil, they can kill and get away with it.

A TRIBUNA – What is needed to reduce the murder rate in Brazil?

BENE BARBOSA – First of all, we need a large investment in the investigative departments of our police forces. There are numerous measures needed to reduce the Brazilian impunity issue, ensuring that crimes are adequately investigated and punished. For instance, Brazil currently has 350 thousand prison warrants that have not been enforced.

A TRIBUNA – How about ostensive policing? Does Brazil currently have adequate policing on the streets?

BENE BARBOSA – It is not sufficient. We currently have a too smaller Military Police personal. This gives the people a sense of insecurity, and the criminals a sense of the opposite. The State Governments have to invest a lot more, and it is the Federal Government’s duty to provide more funds.

A TRIBUNA – Do you agree with the proposition that fewer firearms in the hand of civilian will represent fewer homicides in the country?

BENE BARBOSA – I don’t agree in the slightest. The basis for that is that 10 years of disarmament policies have only contributed to a large increase in the levels of gun crime.

A TRIBUNA – In what measure do disarmament policies contribute to public security?

BENE BARBOSA – They don’t. There is not one single case of a country that has put forward this kind of restrictive legislation that has experienced any positive results.

A TRIBUNA – So disarmament is a false solution for public security issues?

BENE BARBOSA – Civil disarmament is a false promise. Those who pushed it forward know this, and used the measure to provide a false response to the peoples claim for a safes society.

A TRIBUNA – Are you familiar with the public security status of the Sate of Espirito Santo?

BENE BARBOSA – I know it is one of the most violent States in Brazil. It has recently been superseded by the State of Alagoas, but must still hold the 2nd or 3rd position in the national ranking. The State of Alagoas in currently the most violent and is also the champion in all the civil disarmament campaigns. The population of Alagoas largely adhered in the civil disarmament campaigns and has since experienced a significant increase in their violence levels, making the state into the most insecure of the country. Just one more piece of evidence that civil disarmament doesn’t work.

A TRIBUNA – Why does a small State like Espirito Santo have such high violence levels?

BENE BARBOSA – Because of the same factors that exist in the rest of the country. Impunity, drug use, organized crime, among others, all contribute to a more violent society.

 

Brazilian Group Movimento Viva Brasil Joins IAPCAR Coalition

Friday, May 10th, 2013

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) announced today that Brazilian gun rights group Movimento Viva Brasil has joined the international coalition of 25 groups in 16 different countries dedicated to the preservation and defense of civilian firearms rights.logo_mvb_200_200

“Our international alliance of like-minded civilian arms rights groups has a strong representation in Brazil now,” IAPCAR’s Executive Director Philip Watson said. “Movimento Viva Brasil brings another voice to the movement for civilian arms rights.”

Movimento Viva Brasil was involved in the coalition that defeated the nation-wide gun control referendum in 2005 with 64% of the voters casting their ballot against the measure.

Bene Barbosa, president of Movimento Viva Brasil, stated that their organization wants to help “visualize the true and utter failure of the gun-control measures enforced in Brazil, as well as contribute to the strengthening of a worldwide effort to protect civilian gun-rights.”

IAPCAR co-founder Julianne Versnel praised IAPCAR’s newest group for their accomplishments and hard work. “Their record speaks for itself. They’ve been effective and unwavering in defending the rights of Brazilians to defend themselves.”

As a representative to the United Nations, Versnel, who is also the Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Operations, submitted testimony to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) meeting in March objecting to the exclusion of civilian arms rights from the ATT. “Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” Versnel told the delegates.

The IAPCAR gun rights coalition is focused on opposition to the ATT, which has passed the UN General Assembly and will be available for countries to sign on June 3. The ATT does not acknowledge or protect civilian arms rights or recognize the right to self-defense in its enforceable language.v 

Movimento Viva Brazil may be accessed on the Internet via: (www.mvb.org.br/)

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (www.iapcar.com) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 25 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Synopsis of Movimento Viva Brasil Referendum Victory

Thursday, May 9th, 2013

Via:  www.mvb.org.br

When Movimento Viva Brasil was founded, in August 2004, it represented not only the wishes but also the hopes of a group of idealists who had always fought for their civil rights, especially the right to bear arms.

Lead by Bene Barbosa, a mid-school teacher, dedicated defender of people’s civil rights and individual freedoms for more than 10 years, Movimento Viva Brasil started a serious discussion about the lack of effective national security policies, which was being masked by some people with a Disarmament Campaign of the law abiding citizens.

Movimento Viva Brasil was founded with the objective of showing and informing the Brazilian population about what in fact was behind the Disarmament Campaign, brought forward by the Disarmament Statute, and to put an end to the fallacies suggested by the anti-gun supporters, in defense of the Referendum and the Prohibition Campaign.

The Congress

The battle that took place in the National Congress was long and hard. Always present in Brasilia, Movimento Viva Brasil followed all the steps to the MP’s voting that approved the referendum. It also worked together with the few politicians that questioned the Disarmament Statute and the absurd idea of taking gun-rights from the people.

On several occasions, the national and regional coordination of Movimento Viva Brasil tried to arrange a meeting with Senator Renan Calheiros, President of the Brazilian Senate, to discuss the Disarmament Statute, the campaign and the Referendum, but was never received by the Senator.

At the House of Representatives however, Movimento Viva Brasil was received by the then President of the House, Severino Cavalcanti, together with many other entities and associations for human rights, families of victims of violence, people of the countryside, sporting shooters (of which Brazil once won a gold medal in the Olympic Games), and several others, determined not to lose their right to purchase firearms and ammunition.

It was one of the most remarkable moments in our fight. The banner “Disarming the citizen is not the solution” was printed on T-shirts of all those who were present at the Cabinet of the House of Representatives President.

The press

It had always been part of Movimento Viva Brasiil’s policies to inform the population about the facts of the Referendum, but it had a lot of difficulty in getting the necessary ink and airtime, due to the posture of the mainstream media, practically made up by people willing to defend the more “politically correct” position. Unfortunately a large part of the Brazilian press was not interested in listening to what Movimento Viva Brasil had to say, despite all the information and statistics that were offered for journalists to analyze.

However, thanks to an excellent communication strategy, Movimento Viva Brasil conquered space in the regional communication channels and in the Internet, from where broadcasted information reached the population and opinion-makers.

Movimento Viva Brasil gradually gained visibility as a sound source of information and had a positive participation in a series of interviews and debates on television and radio.

Parallel to that, various other idealists from different regions of the country gathered together and joined the fight. Movimento Viva Brasil managed to gather some voluntary regional coordinators in different States, being then able to create a solid information web. The president of Movimento Viva Brasil himself, traveled around the country, participating in interviews and debates, public audiences, visiting trade unions and institutions.

The Parliamentary front

A lot of effort had to be directed towards the Members of Parliament during the Referendum’s approval process, unfortunately not enough to avoid the Referendum itself. A great mass of government’s allies in the Congress, together with NGO’s financed by foreign money, put all their effort into the approval of the Referendum. And it was the Brazilian population, eager for realistic and effective measures towards public security, that had to pay approximately R$ 600 million to go to the polls.

In March 2005, even before the Referendum was approved by the Congress, Movimento Viva Brasil and Alberto Fraga MP created the Non-partisan Committee for Self Defense Rights (Comitê Suprapartidário Pela Legítima Defesa), which later became the Parliamentary Front for Self Defense Rights (Frente Parlamentar pelo Direito à Legítima Defesa), supporting the “NO” Vote campaign, against prohibition.

Opinion polls started to show the voting intentions of the population. Some sectors of the media however, with the clear intention of confusing the electorate about their vote, misled the population into believing that the election was about Disarmament, and that if Prohibition was passed, the crime levels would have a considerable drop. For some time, these lies succeeded, and voting intention polls indicated that 80% of the electorate tended to vote “YES” (in favor of the prohibition).

The turning point

We would have to be very efficient in informing the electorate about the realistic information about what was really behind the Referendum, so that they knew exactly what they were voting for, or against. Our PR, Chico Santa Rita, was in charge of all campaign publicity matters and was determined that the arguments should focus on civil rights and individual freedom. From then on, the lies, fallacies, fake numbers, and manipulated statistics used by the anti-gun campaigners started to be exposed. Quickly, most citizens had realized what the Referendum was all about, and were determined not to give up their rights, particularly when their right to make choices was at stake.

It was then that we had what could be called the “turning point”. Opinion polls started to show that voting intentions were now on an equal basis, and the media could no longer continue to manipulate the facts. By then, Movimento Viva Brasil had become a sound source of information for journalists covering the event. The “NO” Vote was starting to gain strength, especially after the free TV and radio campaigns were under way.

After only twenty days of free national TV and radio campaign and two days before the voting, opinion polls indicated that 49% of the electorate already intended to vote “NO” towards prohibition, against 45% tended towards the “YES” Vote.

The victory

During the days that preceded the election, there were no end of demonstrations and protests, clearly showing what a great part of the Brazilian population intended to vote for on the 23rd of October.

Brazilians were prepared to say one big “NO” to the prohibition of the legal sales of firearms and ammunition – 64% of the population did so.

 

‘India abstained from ATT, will ensure no harm on national interest’

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

Original Story Via:   Zeenews.India.com

New Delhi: India abstained from the Arms Trade Treaty adopted by the United Nations and the government will take all measures to ensure that it does not impact national interest, the Lok Sabha was informed on Monday.

In a written reply to the House, Defence Minister A K Antony also said India’s position in this regard has been placed on record at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

“India abstained from the draft Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which was adopted at UNGA session on April 2, as it does not meet out requirements,” he said. The ATT aims at regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships.

Antony said the government will take all necessary measures to ensure that the Treaty does not adversely impact the national interest.

In reply to a question on import of defence items, he said procurement is made from various indigenous as well as foreign sources, including the United States, in accordance with the Defence Procurement Procedure.

“Defence equipment has been imported from various countries, including Russia, USA, Israel, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Poland. The imports cover various types of weapon systems and platforms,” he said.

Some of the recently concluded defence deals with foreign vendors are for Konkurs Missiles, UBK Invar Missiles, Basic Trainer Aircraft, MI-17 V5 helicopters, Sonobuoys, Torpedoes and Surveillance Radar Systems, Antony said.

On steps taken to prevent spying activities of China, Antony said, “BSF has been continuously monitoring and gathering intelligence inputs relating to all Chinese activities along Indo-Pak border and sharing the same with other Indian intelligence agencies concerned for appropriate preventive measures.”

Replying a question whether neighbouring countries, including China, have constructed roads in Indian territory, he said, “No construction of roads by neighbouring countries has taken place in territory under possession of India.”

Answering a query on cyber security, he said, “While threats of cyber attacks have increased, adequate safeguards to protect systems through air gapped computers and intranets have been undertaken.”

He also said the Defence Services have established Cyber Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) to prevent and react to cyber attacks.

PTI

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/india-abstained-from-att-will-ensure-no-harm-on-national-interest_846867.html

 

Belmonte: Gun control to be taken up in 16th Congress

Friday, April 26th, 2013

Original story by  (philstar.com)

MANILA, Philippines – After a recent survey showed that 3 out of 4 Filipinos support a gun control policy, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said on Friday that the issue would be taken up in the next Congress.

Reiterating his call for a strict gun control, Belmonte said the matter “would most likely” be among the many concerns to be raised when the 16th Congress opens in July.

Earlier this year, Belmonte said the country certainly needs greater firearms control. A total ban except for those in the military, police and security agencies, was only ideal as long as illegal firearms thrive, he added.

Meanwhile, one of the authors of a gun control measure filed in the lower house stressed the need for “comprehensive, sustainable and stricter” regulations on all types of firearms and its components.

Marikina City 1st District Representative Marcelino Teodoro said the proliferation of firearms is becoming rampant, making it easier for criminal entities to perform acts of violence.

“A gun control law must be upheld and fully enforced upon by the concerned agencies and supported by the government to eradicate criminal acts,” said Teodoro, one of the authors of House Bill 5484 or the Comprehensive Firearms, Light Weapons and Ammunition Regulation Act of 2012.

The House of Representatives approved the said bill on third and final reading on Jan. 24, 2012, and sent it to the Senate two days later.

Last February 4 or more than a year later, the Senate approved on third and final reading a similar gun measure, the Senate Bill 3397 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

The said bill had been adopted by the Lower House as an amendment to HB 5484.

Among other violations, the Senate measure penalizes the illegal acquisition or ownership of three or more light firearms, which is punishable by lifetime imprisonment.

The gun measure was filed in the Senate last January, a month when gun-related incidents such the Atimonan, Quezon shooting and the New Year stray bullet cases were highlighted.

Earlier this week, a Pulse Asia survey showed that 75 percent of Filipinos are in favor of the implementation of a gun control policy.

See related story: 3 out of 4 Pinoys favor gun control

In the survey that covered 1,800 people aged 18 and above, only seven percent disagreed to such regulation, while 18 percent were undecided on the issue.

The survey also showed that most Filipinos (78 percent) prefer a policy that only allows law enforcers and licensed private security guards to carry firearms in public places.

A sizeable majority of the respondents (67 percent) also think that guns and their proliferation are among the key reasons why crime and violence occur in the country.

SAF Alarmed at Absence of Civilian Arms Rights in UN Arms Trade Treaty

Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

The controversial Arms Trade Treaty passed by the United Nations General Assembly (GA) with the United States’ support represents an alarming policy shift, and a potential threat to American gun rights, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“The vote was not about public safety,” stated SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The United States already has the strongest regulations in the world on the international trade of conventional weapons.”

The U.S. broke with its policy requiring consensus and not only voted for the treaty but sponsored it.

Julianne Versnel, SAF’s Director of Operations, who spoke about self-defense in an NGO statement expressed disappointment.

“We have been working for 7 years on an ATT. There have been eight lengthy multi-day meetings and we still can’t get the right of civilians to self-defense acknowledged,” she observed.

On March 27, after the final text of the ATT was released, SAF sent a letter to Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Countryman expressing concern and asking for clarification regarding several provisions of the proposed treaty. Also signing the letter were the National Rifle Association, Manufacturers Advisory Group, World Forum on Shooting Activities, Defense Small Arms Advisory Council, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute and Firearms Import/Export Roundtable. This laid out five main reservations.

Of primary concern is the fact that civilian arms appeared to be included in the treaty, yet there is no recognition of the lawful right of civilians to own, trade and use small arms for self-defense. The language used in the Scope does not exclude “firearms that are lawfully owned by civilians and are not part of international commerce.” The language was also unclear concerning international travel with firearms by hunters and sport shooters.

Additionally it was unclear whether relics and curios would fall under this treaty or whether state-owned museums would be able to transport artifacts to other countries without export licenses. There is also concern that the amendment process for the treaty, and the possibility that major provisions could be effected by a minority.

The ATT will be open for signatures on June 3. Although President Obama has indicated he will sign it, the Treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate before it becomes binding on the United States.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Canada’s NFA Opposes UN ATT

Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013

Original Story Via:  NFA.CA

The UN General Assembly passed a flawed Arms Trade Treaty this morning in New York City with 3 no votes, 23 abstaining, and 154 voting in favour.  According to NFA President Sheldon Clare, “The Arms Trade Treaty will set a dangerous precedent as a bad international agreement that will do nothing to prevent the misuse of major weapons systems and much to limit access of firearms and ammunition to legitimate users.” He continued, “As we see it, this ATT will harm legitimate users. We expect that it will increase the cost of ammunition, firearms, parts, and accessories for normal civilian users.” Canada’s National Firearms Association has gone on record as opposing the inclusion of civilian small arms and light weapons in the Arms Trade Treaty. “Canada will now need to decide whether or not to ratify this treaty, and we strongly suggest that our government not ratify it.”

Clare pointed to several problems with the draft treaty, part of which calls on states to “…establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.  The treaty is vague in many sections and in our view this vagueness opens doorways for many additional regulations and restrictions to be introduced in a treaty that we expect would be ever-expanding.”

Clare said, “We see this vague phrasing as having the potential to create a national registry which would be all the more offensive as it would be made public.”  He continued, “Several articles are about “end user” documentation, and the NFA submits that the end user of small arms and ammunition cannot be known in the absence of a heavily regulated registration and licensing program, which we vigorously oppose. The peer-reviewed evidence shows that neither licensing nor registration prevents criminal use of firearms. Furthermore, the ATT ignores personal defence as a legitimate form of firearm use.”

“Another significant problem is that parts of the draft treaty open the door to widespread corruption as well as to potential costly demands for real and necessary assistance. Our members hope that Canada will push for fiscal responsibility at the UN to ensure that funding is better monitored and controlled. Improved financial controls would save more lives than this Arms Trade Treaty ever would,” Clare stated. “Though we are disappointed that Canada voted for the treaty, we are pleased that Canada did not sponsor the treaty during the vote, and we hope that Canada will not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty. The Canadian government stood strongly in favour of civilian firearms owners during the treaty process to obtain some helpful preamble language, but the treaty remains a bad deal.  The present domestic burdens on Canadian firearms owners are already excessive, and the effect of this treaty would be to add more onerous and costly requirements for firearms ownership, as well as build further disrespect for firearms law. This treaty does not have the support of a significant proportion of the firearms owning public, and it appears to be in direct conflict with the stated aims of the Government in regards to not having any new burdens for firearms owners.”

Canada’s National Firearms Association is this country’s largest advocacy organization promoting the rights and freedoms of all responsible firearm owners and users.

UN adopts Arms Treaty in hurried vote

Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

By Dave Workman | Senior Editor

By a 154-3 vote with 23 abstentions that included Russia and China, the United Nations General Assembly quickly pushed through an international Arms Trade Treaty that many in the gun rights community see as a direct threat to the Second Amendment.

The Obama administration officially supported the treaty, in an about-face that raised the anger of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Larry Keane said that this proves “the Obama administration wants a sweeping U.N. arms control treaty.”

“We are troubled by the timing of the Obama Administration’s decision to abandon consensus on the eve of the Senate debate on pending gun-control measures,” Keane said in a press release. “The United Nations treaty would have a broad impact on the U.S. firearms industry and its base of consumers in the U.S.”

Gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), have been sounding alarms on the treaty effort for several years. SAF helped create the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) in early 2010, and CCRKBA has been instrumental in creation of at least two Capitol Hill measures to prevent the United States from participating in U.N. gun control actions.

According to Fox News, the vote was 154-3 with 23 abstentions. The Washington Times quoted Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) who essentially said the treaty would not survive a Senate vote.

“The Senate has already gone on record in stating that an Arms Trade Treaty has no hope, especially if it does not specifically protect the individual right to bear arms and American sovereignty,” he said, according to the newspaper. “It would be pointless for the president to sign such a treaty and expect the Senate to go along. We won’t ratify it.”

Gun control organizations including Amnesty International were crowing about the vote. Deputy Executive Director Frank Jannuzi issued a statement blasting the NRA, which opposed the treaty.

“Today’s victory shows that ordinary people who care about protecting human rights can fight back to stop the gun lobby dead in its tracks, helping to save countless lives,” he said. “The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses. Iran, Syria and North Korea blocked consensus at the U.N., while the NRA cynically – and ultimately unsuccessfully – tried to erode the U.S. government’s support through a campaign of lies about the treaty But in the end, the global call for responsibility in the arms trade won out.

“Amnesty International played a leading role in initiating the campaign for this treaty nearly 20 years ago and has fought tirelessly to stop weapons from being sent to countries where we know they are used to commit human rights atrocities,” Januzzi added. “This has been a life-saving struggle that never could have been achieved without the support of millions of human rights activists who stepped forward to demand change. We call on President Obama to be first in line on June 3 when the treaty opens for signature.”

That may be a tall order for the president, who already knows that there are not enough votes in the Senate for ratification.

Phil Watson, IAPCAR executive director, noted that the treaty language is troubling because there is no specific protection for privately owned civilian firearms. He was also wary about the vote because he said it had not been on the General Assembly agenda, but was called up and passed quickly on the morning of April 2.

In a statement to TGM, Watson noted that the treaty had not been able to reach consensus with all parties in agreement, and it was “hurried to the General Assembly.”

“An ATT without any provision protecting civilian use of firearms for the purpose of self-defense is unacceptable,” Watson said. “While the preamble makes vague reference to civilian arms, there is nothing acknowledging the right in the operative language of the treaty.”

IAPCAR comment on UN ATT approval

Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) expressed concern about the passage of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT) after its approval on April 2, 2013 in the UN General Assembly. This is not the path that the ATT should have taken. The Treaty had not been able to reach consensus, where all parties agreed, and it was hurried to the General Assembly. There were 154 votes in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions.

Philip Watson, IAPCAR’s executive director, stated, “An ATT without any provision protecting civilian use of firearms for the purpose of self-defense is unacceptable. While the preamble makes vague reference to civilian arms, there is nothing acknowledging the right in the operative language of the treaty.”

IAPCAR co-founder Julianne Versnel addressed the global body at the ATT conference on March 27 along with other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and defended the use of firearms in self-defense. “Almost half of the handguns in the US are owned by women. They are used daily for self-defense. I fully endorse, as should every person in this room, the idea that women must have the means to defend themselves. Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself,” she told the delegates.

Pro-civilian rights supporters, collectors, industry and other participated in the process; however, were given less than half the time allotted to the self-titled ‘arms control’ groups in testimony to the global body.

The ATT will be open for signature on June 3 and will enter into force 90 days after the 50th signatory ratifies it.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (http://iapcar.org/) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 24 major gun-rights organizations and conducts operations designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

NSSF Objects to U.S. Government Abandoning Position that U.N. Treaty Must be based on International “Consensus”

Monday, April 1st, 2013

Via:  National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)

The National Shooting Sports Foundation today strongly objected to the last-minute reversal of the U.S. government position regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. In the closing hours of negotiations on Thursday, March 28, the government abandoned its previous insistence that the treaty be approved only through achieving “consensus” of all the member states. Requiring consensus had been the United States position going back to earlier administrations.

At the end of the session, a U.S. government spokesperson told reporters “It’s important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.” The spokesperson went on to say that the United States would vote “yes” on the treaty in the General Assembly, regardless of the positions of other member states. By abandoning the requirement for consensus the United States is assuring passage of the treaty by the United Nations.

“This abrupt about-face on the long-standing United States requirement for ‘consensus’ illustrates that the Obama Administration wants a sweeping U.N. arms control treaty,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We are troubled by the timing of the Obama Administration’s decision to abandon consensus on the eve of the Senate debate on pending gun control measures. The United Nations treaty would have a broad impact on the U.S. firearms industry and its base of consumers in the U.S.”

Industry analysts have identified three major areas of concern with the treaty text. The treaty clearly covers trade in civilian firearms, not just military arms and equipment. It will have a major impact on the importation of firearms to the United States, which is a substantial source for the consumer market. And it will impose new regulations on the “transit” of firearms, the term defined so broadly that it would cover all everything from container ships stopping at ports to individuals who are traveling internationally with a single firearm for hunting or other sporting purposes.

“We hope that the Members of the U.S. Senate are closely watching the White House abandon its principles and promises in the rush to ramrod this flawed treaty into effect. Not only will they later be asked to ratify this attack on our constitution and sovereignty, but they will also be lavished with new promises from the administration in its drive to push a broad gun control agenda through the U.S. Senate when it returns from recess. They would be right to question those promises strongly,” concluded Keane.

Proposed arms treaty shows UN is its own worst enemy

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013

Original Article Via:  Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

The final draft of the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is out, and it contains language that may be incendiary to gun rights activists in the United States, with references to maintaining “national control systems” for small arms and ammunition.

From the proposed treaty on Page 4: “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.”

Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, has been vocally critical of the ATT process and is concerned about “vagueness” in the current language. SAF’s Julianne Versnel was at the UN last week to testify about unintended consequences of international gun control measures.

From the proposed treaty on Page 5: “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.” Versnel suggested this may be one of the “core problems” of the proposed treaty, but it might take a determination from someone skilled in diplomatic speech to figure it out.

On Page 9 of the document, there is an entire section on record keeping that just might be enough to cause many people on Capitol Hill to follow the lead shown by Republican Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, discussed by this column that might prevent the U.S. from signing on.

Record keeping:

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article
2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

But does all of this treaty language really mean what a lot of people will think it means: The UN dictating some sort of national gun registry, at least on imported firearms? Because of the way this document is written, even if some UN spokesperson says “No,” there will be a legion of gun rights advocates who say “Yes,” and they will have compelling, if not convincing arguments.

The draft documents do include some caveats in the Preamble, including:

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms
exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

Emphasizing that nothing in this Treaty prevents States from maintaining and adopting additional effective measures to further the object and purpose of this Treaty,

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional
arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law…

But the Preamble is just that. It’s apparently not part of any binding language.

The authors of this document will be largely to blame for any misunderstanding, and they have opened themselves up to criticism that the language seems deliberately foggy and far too steeped in diplomatic semantics. That translates to being something less than “plain English.” Since the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to sign onto such a treaty, the Senate just might reject it out of hand, but before that happens, somebody will have to translate it for them.

UN Arms Trade Treaty Final Draft

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013

Document Via:

UN.org/Disarmament

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_%28As_adopted_by_the_GA%29-E.pdf

PRESIDENT’S NON PAPER, 27 MARCH 2013

1

United Nations Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty

New York, 18-28 March 2013

Draft decision

Submitted by the President of the Final Conference

The Final United Nations Conference of the Arms Trade Treaty,

Adopts the Arms Trade Treaty, the text of which is annexed to the present decision.

Annex

The Arms Trade Treaty

Preamble

The States Parties to this Treaty,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations which seeks to promote the

establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for

armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,

Underlining the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms

and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end users,

including in the commission of terrorist acts,

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial interests of

States in the international trade in conventional arms,

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms

exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

2

Acknowledging that peace and security, development and human rights, are pillars of

the United Nations system and foundations for collective security and recognizing that

development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing,

Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission Guidelines for international

arms transfers in the context of General Assembly resolution 46/36H of 6 December 1991,

Noting the contribution made by the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent,

Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,

as well as the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their

Parts and Components and Ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention

against Transnational Organized Crime, and the International Instrument to Enable States to

Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons,

Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the

illicit and unregulated trade in conventional arms,

Bearing in mind that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast

majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence,

Recognizing also the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for

adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion,

Emphasizing that nothing in this Treaty prevents States from maintaining and

adopting additional effective measures to further the object and purpose of this Treaty,

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional

arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership

and use are permitted or protected by law,

Mindful also of the role regional organizations can play in assisting States Parties,

upon request, in implementing this Treaty,

Recognizing the voluntary and active role that civil society, including nongovernmental

organizations, and industry, can play in raising awareness of the object and

purpose of this Treaty, and in supporting its implementation,

Acknowledging that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms and

preventing their diversion, should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade

in materiel, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes,

Emphasizing the desirability of achieving universal adherence to this Treaty,

Determined to act in accordance with the following principles;

Principles

3

– The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defense as recognized

in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations;

– The settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that

international peace and security and justice, are not endangered in accordance with Article 2

(3) of the Charter of the United Nations;

– Refraining in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the

territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent

with the purposes of the United Nations in accordance with Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the

United Nations;

– Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of

any State in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations;

– Respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law in accordance

with, inter alia, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and respecting and ensuring respect for

human rights, in accordance with, inter alia, the Charter of the United Nations and the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

– The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international

obligations, to effectively regulate the international trade in conventional arms, and to

prevent their diversion, as well as the primary responsibility of all States in establishing and

implementing their respective national control systems;

– The respect for the legitimate interests of States to acquire conventional arms to

exercise their right to self-defense and for peacekeeping operations; and to produce, export,

import and transfer conventional arms;

– Implementing this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

Object and Purpose

The object of this Treaty is to:

– Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or

improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

– Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their

diversion;

for the purpose of:

4

– Contributing to international and regional peace, security and stability;

– Reducing human suffering;

– Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in

the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among

States Parties.

Article 2

Scope

1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

(a) Battle tanks;

(b) Armoured combat vehicles;

(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;

(d) Combat aircraft;

(e) Attack helicopters;

(f) Warships;

(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and

(h) Small arms and light weapons.

2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the activities of the international trade comprise export,

import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering, hereafter referred to as “transfer”.

3. This Treaty shall not 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 3

Ammunition/Munitions

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export

of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered

under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to

authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.

Article 4

Parts and Components

5

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export

of parts and components where the export is in a form that provides the capability to

assemble the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1). Each State Party shall apply the

provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such parts and

components.

Article 5

General Implementation

1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and nondiscriminatory

manner, bearing in mind the principles referred to in this Treaty.

2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a

national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range

of conventional arms. National definitions of any of the categories covered in Article 2

(1) (a-g) shall not cover less than the descriptions used in the United Nations Register of

Conventional Arms at the time of entry into force of this Treaty. For the category covered

in Article 2 (1) (h), national definitions shall not cover less than the descriptions used in

relevant United Nations instruments at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.

4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the

Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are

encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.

5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty

and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and

transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms covered

under Article 2 (1) and of items covered in Article 3 and Article 4.

6. Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange

information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall

notify the Secretariat, established under Article 18, of its national point(s) of contact and

keep the information updated.

Article 6

Prohibitions

1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article

2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its

obligations under measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under

Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

6

2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article

2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if the transfer would violate its

relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a Party, in

particular those relating to the transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

3. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article

2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of

authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes

against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed

against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by

international agreements to which it is a Party.

Article 7

Export and Export Assessment

1. If the export is not prohibited under Article 6, each exporting State Party, prior to

authorization of the export of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items

covered under Article 3 or Article 4, under its jurisdiction and pursuant to its national

control system, shall, in an objective and non-discriminatory manner, taking into account

relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State in accordance

with Article 8 (1), assess the potential that the conventional arms or items:

a) would contribute to or undermine peace and security;

b) could be used to:

i. commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law;

ii. commit or facilitate a serious violation of international human rights law;

iii. commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international conventions

or protocols relating to terrorism to which the exporting State is a Party; or

iv. commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international conventions

or protocols relating to transnational organized crime to which the exporting State

is a Party.

2. The exporting State Party shall also consider whether there are measures that could be

undertaken to mitigate risks identified in (a) or (b) in paragraph 1, such as confidencebuilding

measures or jointly developed and agreed programmes by the exporting and

importing States.

7

3. If, after conducting this assessment and considering available mitigating measures, the

exporting State Party determines that there is an overriding risk of any of the negative

consequences in paragraph 1, the exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.

4. The exporting State Party, in making this assessment, shall take into account the risk of

the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of the items covered under Article 3

or Article 4, being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender based violence or

serious acts of violence against women and children.

5. Each exporting State Party shall take measures to ensure that all authorizations for the

export of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article

3 or Article 4, are detailed and issued prior to the export.

6. Each exporting State Party shall make available appropriate information about the

authorization in question, upon request, to the importing State Party and to the transit or

trans-shipment States Parties, subject to its national laws, practices or policies.

7. If, after an authorization has been granted, an exporting State Party becomes aware of

new relevant information, it is encouraged to reassess the authorization after

consultations, if appropriate, with the importing State.

Article 8

Import

1. Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant

information is provided, upon request, pursuant to its national laws, to the exporting State

Party, to assist the exporting State Party in conducting its national export assessment

under Article 7. Such measures may include end use or end user documentation.

2. Each importing State Party shall take measures that will allow it to regulate, where

necessary, imports under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article 2

(1). Such measures may include import systems.

3. Each importing State Party may request information from the exporting State Party

concerning any pending or actual export authorizations where the importing State Party is

the country of final destination.

Article 9

Transit or trans-shipment

Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to regulate, where necessary and feasible,

the transit or trans-shipment under its jurisdiction of conventional arms covered under Article

2 (1) through its territory in accordance with relevant international law.

8

Article 10

Brokering

Each State Party shall take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering

taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1). Such

measures may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written authorization before

engaging in brokering.

Article 11

Diversion

1. Each State Party involved in the transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1)

shall take measures to prevent their diversion.

2. The exporting State Party shall seek to prevent the diversion of the transfer of

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) through its national control system,

established in accordance with Article 5 (2), by assessing the risk of diversion of the

export and considering the establishment of mitigation measures such as confidencebuilding

measures or jointly developed and agreed programmes by the exporting and

importing States. Other prevention measures may include, where appropriate: examining

parties involved in the export, requiring additional documentation, certificates,

assurances, not authorizing the export or other appropriate measures.

3. Importing, transit, trans-shipment and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and

exchange information, pursuant to their national laws, where appropriate and feasible, in

order to mitigate the risk of diversion of the transfer of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1).

4. If a State Party detects a diversion of transferred conventional arms covered under Article

2 (1), the State Party shall take appropriate measures, pursuant to its national laws and in

accordance with international law, to address such diversion. Such measures may include,

alerting potentially affected State Parties, examining diverted shipments of such

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and taking follow-up measures through

investigation and law enforcement.

5. In order to better comprehend and prevent the diversion of transferred conventional arms

covered under Article 2 (1), State Parties are encouraged to share relevant information

with one another on effective measures to address diversion. Such information may

include information on illicit activities including corruption, international trafficking

routes, illicit brokers, sources of illicit supply, methods of concealment, common points

of dispatch, or destinations used by organized groups engaged in diversion.

9

6. States Parties are encouraged to report to other State Parties, through the Secretariat, on

measures taken in addressing the diversion of transferred conventional arms covered

under Article 2 (1).

Article 12

Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and

regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are

authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,

model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article

2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing

State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

Article 13

Reporting

1. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that

State Party, in accordance with Article 22, provide an initial report to the Secretariat of

measures undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, including national laws, national

control lists and other regulations and administrative measures. Each State Party shall

report to the Secretariat on any new measures undertaken in order to implement this

Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be made available, and distributed to States

Parties by the Secretariat.

2. States Parties are encouraged to report to other States Parties, through the Secretariat,

information on measures taken that have been proven effective in addressing the

diversion of transferred conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

3. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Secretariat by 31 May a report for the

preceding calendar year concerning authorized or actual exports and imports of

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1). Reports shall be made available, and

distributed to States Parties by the Secretariat. The report submitted to the Secretariat

may contain the same information submitted by the State Party to relevant United Nations

10

frameworks, including the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Reports may

exclude commercially sensitive or national security information.

Article 14

Enforcement

Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that

implement the provisions of this Treaty.

Article 15

International Cooperation

1. States Parties shall cooperate with each other, consistent with their respective security

interests and national laws, to effectively implement this Treaty.

2. States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including exchanging

information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of

this Treaty pursuant to their respective security interests and national laws.

3. States Parties are encouraged to consult on matters of mutual interest and to share

information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty.

4. States Parties are encouraged to cooperate, pursuant to their national laws, in order to

assist national implementation of the provisions of this Treaty, including through sharing

information regarding illicit activities and actors and in order to prevent and eradicate

diversion of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

5. States Parties shall, where jointly agreed and consistent with their national laws, afford

one another the widest measure of assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial

proceedings in relation to violations of national measures established pursuant to this

Treaty.

6. States Parties are encouraged to take national measures and to cooperate with each other

to prevent the transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) becoming subject

to corrupt practices.

7. States Parties are encouraged to exchange experience and information on lessons learned

in relation to any aspect of this Treaty.

Article 16

International Assistance

1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or

legislative assistance, institutional capacity building, and technical, material or financial

11

assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament,

demobilization and reintegration programmes, model legislation, and effective practices

for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance,

upon request.

2. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United

Nations, international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental

organizations, or on a bilateral basis.

3. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States

Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is

encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.

Article 17

Conference of States Parties

1. A Conference of States Parties shall be convened by the provisional Secretariat,

established under Article 18, no later than one year following the entry into force of this

Treaty and thereafter at such other times as may be decided by the Conference of States

Parties.

2. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt by consensus its rules of procedure at its first

session.

3. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt financial rules for itself as well as governing

the funding of any subsidiary bodies it may establish as well as financial provisions

governing the functioning of the Secretariat. At each ordinary session, it shall adopt a

budget for the financial period until the next ordinary session.

4. The Conference of States Parties shall:

(a) Review the implementation of this Treaty, including developments in the field of

conventional arms

(b) Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation and operation of this

Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality;

(c) Consider amendments to this Treaty in accordance with Article 20;

(d) Consider issues arising from the interpretation of this Treaty;

(e) Consider and decide the tasks and budget of the Secretariat;

(f) Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the

functioning of this Treaty; and

(g) Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

12

5. Extraordinary meetings of the Conference of States Parties shall be held at such other

times as may be deemed necessary by the Conference of States Parties, or at the written

request of any State Party provided that this request is supported by at least two thirds of

the States Parties.

Article 18

Secretariat

1. This Treaty hereby establishes a Secretariat to assist States Parties in the effective

implementation of this Treaty. Pending the first meeting of the Conference of States

Parties, a provisional Secretariat will be responsible for the administrative functions

covered under this Treaty.

2. The Secretariat shall be adequately staffed. Staff shall have the necessary expertise to

ensure that the Secretariat can effectively undertake the responsibilities described in

paragraph 3.

3. The Secretariat shall be responsible to States Parties. Within a minimized structure, the

Secretariat shall undertake the following responsibilities:

(a) Receive, make available and distribute the reports as mandated by this

Treaty;

(b) Maintain and make available to States Parties the list of national points of

contact;

(c) Facilitate the matching of offers of and requests for assistance for Treaty

implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;

(d) Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making

arrangements and providing the necessary services for meetings under this

Treaty; and

(e) Perform other duties as decided by the Conferences of States Parties.

Article 19

Dispute Settlement

1. States Parties shall consult and, by mutual consent, cooperate to pursue settlement of any

dispute that may arise between them with regard to the interpretation or application of

this Treaty including through negotiations, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement or

other peaceful means.

2. States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, arbitration to settle any dispute between

them, regarding issues concerning the interpretation or application of this Treaty.

13

Article 20

Amendments

1. Six years after the entry into force of this Treaty, any State Party may propose an

amendment to this Treaty. Thereafter, proposed amendments may only be considered by

the Conference of States Parties every three years.

2. Any proposal to amend this Treaty shall be submitted in writing to the Secretariat, which

shall circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before the next

meeting of the Conference of States Parties at which amendments may be considered

pursuant to paragraph 1. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of

States Parties at which amendments may be considered pursuant to paragraph 1 if, no

later than 120 days after its circulation by the Secretariat, a majority of States Parties

notify the Secretariat that they support consideration of the proposal.

3. The States Parties shall make every effort to achieve consensus on each amendment. If

all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, the amendment

shall, as a last resort, be adopted by a three-quarters majority vote of the States Parties

present and voting at the meeting of the Conference of States Parties. For the purposes of

this Article, States Parties present and voting means States Parties present and casting an

affirmative or negative vote. The Depositary shall communicate any adopted amendment

to all States Parties.

4. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 shall enter into force for each

State Party that has deposited its instrument of acceptance for that amendment, ninety

days following the date of deposit with the Depositary of the instruments of acceptance

by a majority of the number of States Parties at the time of the adoption of the

amendment. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party ninety days

following the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance for that amendment.

Article 21

Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

1. This Treaty shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York

by all States from the Third Day of the Sixth Month of 2013 until its entry into force.

2. This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by each signatory State.

3. Following its entry into force, this Treaty shall be open for accession by any State that

has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with

the Depositary.

14

Article 22

Entry into Force

1. This Treaty shall enter into force ninety days following the date of the deposit of the

fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, or approval with the Depositary.

2. For any State that deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or

accession subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, this Treaty shall enter into

force for that State ninety days following the date of deposit of its instrument of

ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

Article 23

Provisional application

Any State may at the time of signature or the deposit of instrument of its ratification,

acceptance, approval or accession, declare that it will apply provisionally Article 6 and

Article 7 pending its entry into force.

Article 24

Duration and Withdrawal

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw

from this Treaty. It shall give notification of such withdrawal to the Depositary, which

shall notify all other States Parties. The notification of withdrawal may include an

explanation of the reasons for its withdrawal. The notice of withdrawal shall take effect

ninety days after the receipt of the notification of withdrawal by the Depositary, unless

the notification of withdrawal specifies a later date.

3. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising

from this Treaty while it was a Party to this Treaty, including any financial obligations

that it may have accrued.

Article 25

Reservations

1. At the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, each State may

formulate reservations, unless the reservations are incompatible with the object and

purpose of this Treaty.

15

2. A State Party may withdraw its reservation at any time by notification to this effect

addressed to the Depositary.

Article 26

Relationship with other international agreements

1. The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice obligations undertaken by States

Parties with regard to existing or future international agreements, to which they are

parties, where those obligations are consistent with this Treaty.

2. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding defense cooperation agreements

concluded between States Parties to this Treaty.

Article 27

Depositary

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depositary of this Treaty.

Article 28

Authentic Texts

The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and

Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the

United Nations.

DONE AT NEW YORK, this twenty-eighth day of March, two thousand and thirteen

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_27_March_2013_%28ATT_Final_Conference%29.pdf

 

US Senate Votes to Block UN Arms Trade Treaty

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

Original Story Via:  PJ Media

by Howard Nemerov

During the Senate’s passing of their (congressional budget) Concurrent Resolution 8 on March 23, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe successfully inserted Senate amendment 139 to “prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” (Text of bills can be retrieved from Library of Congress “Thomas” site.)

In a 53-49 vote, the Senate passed Inhofe’s amendment. The list of Yeas and Nays is what’s important going forward, and contains both good news and a warning.

Along with all 45 Republicans, 8 Democrat senators voted Yea:

  • Mark Begich, Alaska
  • Joe Donnelly, Indiana
  • Kay Hagan, North Carolina
  • Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
  • Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota
  • Joe Manchin, West Virginia
  • Mark Pryor, Arkansas
  • Jon Tester, Montana

Full story:  http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/03/26/senate-votes-to-block-un-arms-trade-treaty/

Stacked Deck at UN ATT Talks

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

Via TheGunMag.com

By Philip L. Watson

The Second Amendment Foundation released a statement today highlighting testimony to the UN on the pending ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Little reported was the fact pro self-defense advocates received 15 minutes to address the global body; however, the ‘Control Arms Coalition’ was allotted 35 minutes.

There is currently no explanation for this disparity listed on any of the UN websites.

Julianne Versnel represents three groups at the UN, the American Conservative Union (ACU), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR). Her statements highlighted self-defense as a human right.

“The right of self-defense is particularly important to women,” Versnel stated. “As women, we have a right to protect our bodies and to protect ourselves against assault and rape. No one questions that violence against women is endemic.”

There are genuine concerns that any international gun control treaty would ultimately strip individual firearms rights from people all over the world.

“Most of the delegates here know that in the U.S. there is extensive firearms ownership,” Versnel testified. “What they do not know is that almost half of the handguns in the US are owned by women. They are used daily for self-defense. I fully endorse, as should every person in this room, the idea that women must have the means to defend themselves. Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself.”

The UN ATT talks are scheduled to wrap up by the end of next week.

SAF and IAPCAR Defend Women’s Right of Self-Defense at UN

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

The Second Amendment Foundation today defended the right of women to defend themselves with firearms during testimony at the United Nations regarding the proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

Speaking for SAF was Julianne Versnel, who was also representing the American Conservative Union and the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR). She told the world body that “the right to life must be given real meaning” and that “A right to life must include the fundamental right to defend that life.”

“The right of self-defense is particularly important to women,” Versnel stated. “As women, we have a right to protect our bodies and to protect ourselves against assault and rape. No one questions that violence against women is endemic.”

There are genuine concerns that any international gun control treaty would ultimately strip individual firearms rights from people all over the world.

“Most of the delegates here know that in the U.S. there is extensive firearms ownership,” Versnel testified. “What they do not know is that almost half of the handguns in the US are owned by women. They are used daily for self-defense. I fully endorse, as should every person in this room, the idea that women must have the means to defend themselves. Nothing that is in an Arms Trade Treaty should affect a woman’s right to defend herself.”

She reminded the panel that former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, a staunch supporter of the United Nations and the first U.S. ambassador to the organization, also carried a handgun for personal protection while working in the South on civil rights issues.

“Eleanor Roosevelt was known and revered for her beliefs in woman’s rights—including the right to defend oneself with a firearm if necessary,” Versnel stated. “Mrs. Roosevelt practiced what she preached. In 1958 Mrs. Roosevelt drove though the American South by herself. The Klu Klux Klan had put a $25,000 bounty on her head and the Secret Service told her not to go. She went anyway and on the seat of the car was her own .38 caliber revolver.

“We can learn from Mrs. Roosevelt,” she concluded. “No one supported the U.N. more than she did, but at the same time she insisted on her right, as a woman and as a person to have the means to defend herself.”

EDITORIAL: Gun control by the U.N.

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

Original article via:  The Washington Times

Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

Last week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — no friend of the Second Amendment — announced support for the treaty, which calls for international regulations on firearms, including personal firearms as well as military weapons. During the presidential campaign, President Obama was evasive about his position on the treaty. Now that he has fully “evolved” on the Second Amendment, he has the “flexibility” of not having to face voters again, and is pushing for the treaty.

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s being cooked up in Turtle Bay. Proponents say the treaty is only meant to crack down on illegal gun-smuggling, and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers. Of course, there’s more to the story. The exact wording of the agreement, and more importantly, how vague passages can be interpreted and twisted by the courts, will determine what the treaty actually means. It could, for example, force America to implement a national gun-registration scheme, ban importation of weapons and impose burdensome regulations on transfers.

The “Review Conference on Illicit Small Arms Trade” adopted a “consensus outcome document” that states in Article 2, Paragraph 4 that signatories to the treaty would “establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within paragraph A1 .” Paragraph A1 includes small personal firearms.

Under Article 6, Paragraph 3, signatories (including the United States) would be required to set up an “effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms .” Once again, “conventional arms” would include civilian firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

Article 8, Paragraph 2 requires countries to “put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of this Treaty.” This could prevent U.S. gun owners from buying foreign guns and parts. Other provisions of the document “underscored efforts in marking, record-keeping and cooperation in tracing small arms .” Tracing weapons is legalese for the creation of a gun registry.

The administration pretends that ratification of this deal would do nothing to undermine constitutional rights. “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution,” says Mr. Kerry. The secretary forgets that we can read, too. The written provisions of the treaty and the administration’s domestic agenda on these issues make such reassurance hollow, indeed.

In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Mr. Obama unleashed his all-out effort to ban “assault weapons” — the most popular type of rifle sold in America today. The White House proposals, however, should be doomed in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. Use of the treaty process is a way to bypass that uncooperative body and accomplish many of the same gun-control goals with only 67 Senate votes.

If proponents of the arms-trade treaty are honest about their intentions, they should have no problem amending the draft treaty to explicitly limit the agreement to large, military weapons and exclude all civilian firearms that fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association has offered language that would amend the treaty to eliminate any exploitable ambiguity. Unless such corrections are made, the Senate should stand strong against international deals to trash the constitutional rights of Americans.

The Washington Times

U.N. global gun control effort begins anew

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013

Via Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

New talks about an old subject – international gun control – begin today at the United Nations in New York, and sure to be involved at some point is the Bellevue-based International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), founded with the cornerstone involvement of gun rights advocates Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel.

IAPCAR Executive Director Phil Watson keeps an office at Gottlieb’s Liberty Park complex. Attorney Mark Barnes is IAPCAR’s managing director with an office in Washington, D.C.

In addition, the National Rifle Association is keenly interested in these talks. Indeed, U.S. gun rights organizations have every reason for alarm, in the wake of a statement published Friday by the Washington Post from Amnesty International’s Michelle A. Ringuette.

“The NRA claim that there is such a thing as ‘civilian weapons’ and that these can and need to be treated differently from military weapons under the Arms Trade Treaty is — to put it politely — the gun lobby’s creativity on full display,” Ringuette insisted, according to the newspaper. “There is no such distinction. To try to create one would create a loophole that would render the treaty inoperative, as anyone could claim that he or she was in the business of trading ‘civilian weapons.’ ”

This suggests that global gun banners equate rifles and shotguns with tanks and surface-to-air missiles. For example, during last Thursday’s Senate Judiciary debate on her gun ban legislation, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) defended her efforts to ban “just a few guns” and leave others alone by arguing, “Is this not enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka?”

Raising further alarms is the fact that within hours of confirming his re-election in November. President Barack Obama had joined a handful of other nations to rekindle the U.N.’s long-running effort to adopt an international gun control treaty. Gottlieb, who heads the Second Amendment Foundation, raised alarms about this last Nov. 7.

Amnesty International is part of an international gun control group called IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms). That group also includes the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence, and the Law Center for Smart Gun Laws (LCSGL).

It could be that the deck has been carefully stacked by the U.N. According to Fox News, last week, IANSA co-hosted – with the UN – a “series of meetings” with representatives from 48 African nations to push global gun control. The session was held in Addis Ababa, Ethopia.

Gottlieb was in Europe recently attending a meeting of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting, and he takes the threat of global gun control seriously. That the U.N. is hosting these talks on American soil, in a building that has a statute out front of a Colt Python with its barrel twisted into a knot is a not-so-subtle insult to the Second Amendment and American firearms owners.

Gun rights leaders are warning American gun owners that this is not the time to become complacent, or to be entirely focused on state-level gun control measures, or bills passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s effort to renew and make permanent a ban on so-called “assault rifles” and ammunition magazines.

That all of this is occurring at the same time – barely two months into Obama’s second term – does not seem coincidental to some activists, who are now saying “We warned you.”

UNLIKELY CONSENSUS: Commentary & Outlook for the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty

Tuesday, March 12th, 2013

Via Jeff Moran | Geneva

Revised and updated, 10 March 2013.

UnlikelyConsensusBookCover

TSM Worldwide LLC has published its executive e-briefing of selected context and issues going into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Conference scheduled for 18-28 March 2013 in New York.  It also models five possible outcomes and explains the key factors for why consensus is possible, but not likely.

This concise resource can serve as a sense-making tool for diplomats, international legal specialists, civil society activists, trade groups, academics, students, and strategic business leaders alike.

The author, a former military diplomat and strategy leader at a leading defense/aerospace company, consulted over thirty ATT process insiders to develop this his assessment. For example, this e-briefing incorporates insights and feedback from members of State delegations, humanitarian and arms rights civil society groups, academics and policy analysts, business managers, and trade associations. It also includes original statistical analysis and several insightful graphics that help illustrate the points made.

The brief endeavors to:

1.  Explain how a faction of approximately 30 countries presents a major wildcard for the Conference and what their vision for a future treaty might entail if they decide to break consensus to realize it.

2.  Explore the multi-dimensional quantitative challenge of commanding consensus by examining estimated opposition and support for the ATT, and to suggest where and how prospects for consensus could be improved the most.

3.  Describe three assumptions widely held by some States and their humanitarian partners, and explain why these assumptions are perceived as a form of misguided or dishonest humanitarianism which drives against consensus.

4.  Survey several complexities with respect to the United States, and highlight three conditions the ATT must meet if it is ever to be ratified there.

5.  Present a probability framework for five potential scenarios with respect to reaching consensus at the Conference.

6.  Explain why the most likely scenario for the Conference is that a faction breaks consensus by mounting a coup to pursue their own more progressive version of the ATT.

After reading a preliminary draft, one diplomat assigned to the UN based in Geneva said: “This is extremely interesting and I will send it to my colleagues who will represent us at the Conference later this month.”

The e-briefing is approximately 25 pages and is for sale on Amazon.com for use on all desktops, laptops, Kindle readers, tablets, ipods, and smart phones through Amazon’s free Kindle ap.  The price is $2.99 USD.  Click here to link to Amazon.com.  Click here download free apps for viewing electronic publications for Windows (XP, Vista, 7) and Mac (OS X 10.5 and above).

Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Unlikely-Consensus-ebook/dp/B00BPEOJ7K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362993000&sr=8-1&keywords=unlikely+consensus

Newspaper Editorial – The Arms Trade Treaty: Stop the UN gun grab

Wednesday, February 27th, 2013

Given the Obama administration’s fixation on gun control, the long-disputed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty — down but not out — offers an opportunity to secure by an international accord that which Congress, fearing for its hide, has resisted.

Read More: http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/3550633-74/treaty-gun-arms#axzz2M7sBPIeY

Americans never give up your guns

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013
 Original Story Via: Pravda.ru

 

Americans never give up your guns

28.12.2012 12:15

By Stanislav Mishin 

 

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

 

Stanislav Mishin

The article reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

Дмитрий Судаков

Copyright © 1999-2013, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru’s editors.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Brothers campaign for gun rights in tiny Mexican town

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

Original Story Via: AZStarnet.com

Only criminals are armed now, they complain

LeBARON, Mexico – The LeBaron brothers, Alex and Max, walked outside their sprawling ranch and pointed to the spot where they traded fire with gunmen who pinned them down until both sides reached a truce.

“Had we not been able to defend ourselves that afternoon with our own weapons, I don’t know that we’d be standing here today,” said Alex LeBaron, a state legislator who is leading a campaign to allow residents to arm themselves.

“Without our guns, we stood no chance,” added Max. “We would have been like sitting ducks at target practice.”

It turned out the gunmen were actually soldiers. These days, it’s hard to tell, because just about everyone in this crime-ridden area is heavily armed – everyone, that is, except for regular residents. That makes the town of LeBaron an appropriate place for a gun debate, particularly after the school shootings in Connecticut.

This community in the foothills of the Sierra Madre, whose residents have been victims of extortion, kidnappings and murder, is at the forefront of a movement to press the federal government to change laws that ban citizens from owning weapons unless they belong to a registered gun club. Currently, citizens who want to own a gun must buy it from the military, a long, bureaucratic process, or on the black market.

The LeBaron brothers were armed that day because they belong to a gun club and because they are members of a government-sanctioned militia set up to protect the community after a rash of crimes.

This community of about 1,000, just three hours from the Texas border, is home largely to Mormon farmers, many of them bilingual and dual citizens of the United States and Mexico. Many are related to one another through blood ties that go back decades.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, but an overwhelming arsenal of illegal guns is readily available to drug cartels battling federal forces and rival criminal groups. The drug war has left more than 60,000 people dead and 25,000 missing since former President Felipe Calderón sent federal troops to reclaim territories from drug traffickers shortly after taking office in 2006.

Few communities have been harder hit than this region, home to chile, apple and pecan growers and cheese makers – and a smuggling route, coveted by traffickers, that leads into the United States through Texas.

“We don’t have a problem with jackrabbits,” Max said. “We have a problem with sicarios – hit men. People show up here in fake police, soldier uniforms. You shoot first and then ask questions.”

“The right to bear arms is the best thing Americans have going for them,” said cousin Brent LeBaron Jr. “And here in Mexico, we have high hopes that we, too, can someday defend ourselves from traffickers armed to the teeth.”

Members of an offshoot of the traditional Mormon church, these farmers are like everyday Mexicans anywhere. They drink beer, curse and enjoy long greetings and goodbyes. Yet vestiges of their American ancestry remain intact, including their determination to hold the government accountable – something considered rare in this country until recently – and the right to bear arms.

Three years ago, cousin Benjamin LeBaron stood up after his younger brother was kidnapped and extortionists demanded $1 million. Benjamin led a peaceful movement through the streets of Chihuahua state, calling on authorities to do more to protect residents from what he called madmen who had empowered themselves across the country.

One morning, gunmen came to his home and threatened to rape his wife and harm his children unless he gave them his guns, but he didn’t have any. They took him away. Benjamin and Luis Widmar, a brother-in-law who tried to intervene, were beaten, and their bodies were later found, shot in the head.

Their killings led many in the community to take a stance similar to that of Second Amendment advocates in the United States, but there is another side to the debate here. Many blame the U.S. gun and drug culture for the mayhem in Mexico and are adamantly opposed to more guns. Nearly 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico originated in the U.S., according to a report by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“I don’t want to run around like Pancho Villa – bang, bang,” said Ricardo Paisano, who owns a fruit juice stand in LeBaron. Paisano once lived in Arizona and described the scene there as the “the wild, wild West, where everyone was armed like crazies. We need more jobs, not more guns.”

Others, like Daniel Madrid Mendoza, 28, a member of the gun club near Casas Grandes, disagreed.

“I like guns because I like hunting,” he said. “But also I don’t think it’s right that only the bad guys have access to guns. We should all have the right to defend ourselves.”

Alex LeBaron, a 32-year-old Chihuahua state congressman with national aspirations, is haunted by the memory of his cousin “Benji” and of his own father, who was killed in a carjacking. Alex was educated in New Mexico and served in the U.S. Navy. Giving Mexicans the right to bear arms is among the issues he is most passionate about, one that he says will make Mexicans more individualistic.

“When Benji was killed, the first thing you think is, ‘We gotta get out of here,’ and yet at the moment, I realized I had nowhere to run, nor did I want to go anywhere else,” he said. “This is home. This is where I was born and will one day die.”

Russia to toughen gun laws?

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

Original story via:  Voice of Russia

Russia’s government is prepared to toughen gun laws after a Moscow lawyer Dmitry Vinogradov killed six of his colleagues in the Rigla office shooting spree.

Opponents to the new legislation claim that it will make life difficult for law abiding citizens but will not stop potential shooters.

Eighteen year-olds are too young to carry guns, even traumatic pistols, believe police and MPs. Russia’s Interior Ministry has prepared a draft law increasing the age for carrying a gun from 18 to 21, banning traumatic guns in public places and making a bullet casing database for all types of civilian arms, not only rifles.

The law also envisages tougher handgun permit procedure. Russia’s Duma deputy-speaker Sergey Zheleznyak believes that the measures will reduce the number of crimes involving guns but they still need reinforcement.

“We should also boost police and public security services and use the Safe City monitoring system and CCTV. More attention should be paid to extremists statements in social networks and blogs. That Vinogradov published a manifesto before the rampage where he wrote that hates all humankind.”

However, some people claim that Russia’s gun laws are already strict enough and new measures are odd and unlikely to prevent crimes similar to the Rigla shooting as Vinogradov wasn’t a youngster but a 30-year old who was carrying a long rifle which is actually banned.

International experience shows that gun bans don’t stop killers but deprive people of self-defense measure, says Gun Rights activist Maria Butina

“We know of dozens of massacres without fire arms. There were kitchen knives in China and lighters in Korea. If a criminal wants to, he can use anything. What I find wrong is to deprive law abiding citizens of self-defense.”

Rights to carry guns as well as migration and multiculturalism issues will be wrangled over forever. Its supporters and opponents refer to culture, traditions and statists. The latter says that legal gun owners commit a petty number of gun crimes.

However, everyone shares one stance – legal responsibility for illegal use of any firearms should be toughened.

Germany compiles nationwide gun register

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

Original Story Via: DW.DE

Germany has compiled a national register of firearms for the first time. Figures previously held by a multitude of local authorities have been centrally pooled as part of efforts to curb gun violence.

Germany’s new national firearms registry established that there were 5.5 million legal guns in private ownership nationwide.

Figures compiled in what has been described as Germany’s first reliable nationwide firearms count also showed there were 1.4 million registered owners – an average of approximately four weapons per listed individual.

The information is being collated in a national database that will allow police to keep track of the buying and selling of legal guns across the country. Records were previously kept only at a local level, with some 551 different authorities holding the information.

As the figures were published on Friday, Interior Ministry spokesman Philipp Spauschus said the registry would make a “concrete contribution to public safety.”

All European Union countries are required to set up such a registry by 2015.

The issue of gun crime has once again gained prominence in the German media following the US gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which 26 people were killed including 20 children.

Germany has also suffered from mass shootings, the most notable recent example being the Winnenden school shooting in 2009, in which 16 people died. The perpetrator of that incident, 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer, used a legally-owned firearm belonging to his father.

rc/ccp (AP, dpa)

Indian bus rape: Delhi sees rush for guns

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

Original Story Via: The Guardian

in Delhi

Hundreds of women in Delhi have applied for gun licences following the gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman by six men in a bus in the city last month.

The news underlines the widespread sense of insecurity in the city, deep before the incident and deeper now, and the lack of faith in law enforcement agencies.

The ashes of the victim of the attack – who died on Friday after 13 days in hospitals in India and Singapore, and was cremated in Delhi in a secret ceremony under heavy security on Sunday – were scattered on the surface of the Ganges river, sacred to Hindus, in northern India on Tuesday.

The case has provoked an unprecedented debate about endemic sexual harassment and violence in India. Tens of thousands have protested across the country, calling for harsher laws, better policing and a change in culture.

Politicians, initially caught off-guard, have now promised new legislation to bring in fast-track courts and harsher punishments for sexual assault. The six men accused of the attack are to be formally charged with murder later this week and potentially face execution.

Indian media are currently reporting incidents of sexual violence that would rarely gain attention previously. In the last 24 hours these have included a teenager fleeing repeated abuse by her brother, who was allegedly assaulted on a bus by a conductor, a 15-year-old held for 15 days by three men in a village in Uttar Pradesh and repeatedly assaulted, an 11-year-old allegedly raped by three teenagers in the north-eastern city of Guwahati and two cases of rape in the city of Amritsar.

One case reported on Tuesday involved a woman, also in a village in Uttar Pradesh, who suffered 90% burns after being doused in kerosene, allegedly by a man who had been stalking her for months.

There were signs that a further taboo was about to be broken when one of India’s best-known English-language television presenters asked viewers who had experienced abuse from a family member to contact her.

The rush for firearms will cause concern, however. Police in Delhi have received 274 requests for licences and 1,200 inquiries from women since 18 December, two days after the woman and a male friend were attacked in a bus cruising on busy roads between 9pm and 10pm.

“Lots of women have been contacting us asking for information about how to obtain licences. Any woman has a threat against her. It’s not surprising. There are fearless predators out there,” said Abhijeet Singh of the campaign group Guns For India.

Delhi police received around 500 applications for the whole of 2011, up from 320 the previous year.

Hundreds of women had come in person to the police licensing department in the city, the Times of India reported.

“We had to patiently tell them that one needs to have a clear danger to one’s life to be given a licence. However some … said that with even public transport no longer safe in the city they just cannot take chances,” an unnamed official told the newspaper.

There are estimated to be 40m guns in India, the second highest number in the world after the US. Licences are hard to obtain and most are illegal weapons, many manufactured in backstreet workshops. Official ownership levels remain low – three guns for every 100 people – but in recent years the number of women holding arms has risen. Most are wealthy and worried about theft or assault.

There are fears the attack will lead to further restrictions on women in India, who already suffer significant constraints.

Elders in Matapa, in the poverty-stricken Indian state of Bihar, banned the use of mobile phones for teenage girls and warned them against wearing “sexy” clothes. They claim the move will check rape cases and restore “social order”. Other villages nearby are planning similar bans, locals said.

One member of parliament in Rajasthan, the north-western state, also called for a ban on skirts for schoolgirls to keep them away from “men’s lustful gazes”. Banwari Lal Singhal said private schools allowing students to wear skirts explained increased sexual harassment locally.

Matapa is in southern Bihar’s Aurangabad district – the region from which one of the Delhi gang-rape accused, Akshay Thakur, comes. The order was issued after a formal meeting with villagers, council officials and school teachers on Sunday. “Almost every villager pressed us to ban the mobile phones use by the schoolgirls saying they are proving quite dangerous for the society and corrupting traditional values,” the local village council head, Sushma Singh, told the Guardian on Tuesday.

Protesters were angered by the news. “Our sister will have died in vain if all that is happening after is our fear is greater and ladies are more unfree,” said Deepti Anand, a 21-year-old student in Delhi who has attended demonstrations most days in recent weeks.

Additional reporting by Manoj Chaurasia

U.N. approves new debate on arms treaty opposed by U.S. gun lobby

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

(Reuters) – The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Monday to restart negotiations on a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global trade in conventional arms, a pact the powerful U.S. National Rifle Association has been lobbying hard against.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because U.S. President Barack Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney before the November 6 election if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge U.S. officials have denied.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8BO00B20121225

 

American Gun Homicides Are The Problem Now, Oh Really?

Tuesday, December 18th, 2012

Cross Posted Via:  TheGunMag.com

By Jeff Moran | Geneva

The horrible December 14th Connecticut school shootings are an outrage on humanity, and it is right to raise questions about how and why they happened, and what should be done.  The emotional response by President Obama that day and the refrain in the worldwide media in the days after appear to suggest that the American policy imperative now may be to severely restrict the availability of  guns.  A logical review of the facts surrounding American gun homicides would suggest otherwise however.

Clearly, without question, some people cannot be trusted with guns, and such people should not be allowed to possess or acquire  them to begin with.  But it is also outrageous for American leaders to extrapolate that all other people can not or should not be trusted with modern firearms for their self-defense based simply on what happened in Connecticut and elsewhere this year.  A draconian ban like those imposed in the United Kingdom or Australia after similar shootings is not the way forward for America.  Such a course of action would be an example of weak leadership and policy-making hijacked by emotion.  American citizens must  hold their political leaders to a higher standard of careful fact-based governance.

Just as the Obama Administration has rightly rejected calls from absolutist humanitarians abroad to categorically ban modern landmines, cluster munitions, and nuclear weapons for America’s own defense, so to should the Obama Administration  reject calls from absolutist anti-gun activists at home to ban or severely roll-back the availability of modern small arms for individual self-defense.

The first step forward must be to critically examine basic assumptions about death and armed violence in America.  Perhaps the most enduring assumptions by absolutist in the anti-gun policy community are the false if not outright dishonest assertions that more guns have meant more violence in America over time, that gun homicides have been trending upwards, and that today we are worse off than we have been.

Despite what news media coverage suggests, the truth is that  gun homicides in America have been on the decline for some time.  We must remind our leaders and ourselves that the core competency of the news media / infotainment complex is precisely to showcase extremely bad situations, and to confer upon them, through repetition and the internet echo chamber, a false sense of  normality.  News, by definition, is not about normal life and events.  And so the mass shootings in Connecticut and elsewhere must be recognized for what they truly are:  statistical outliers. Contrary to hyperbolic media coverage,  gun homicides are hardly an uncontrolled epidemic for  Americans.  In fact, they constitute a relatively low and decreasing threat to public safety over time.

An examination of available official information managed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bears this out. For the sake of simplicity and argument, let’s absurdly assume that all homicides in the United States from 1999-2010 were caused by firearms, and firearms alone.  And for good measure, let’s assume all homicides were unjustifiable.  Now, if one examines the top 10 leading causes of death over this period, nowhere in any age group is homicide (“by firearms”) public health and safety enemy #1.   In fact, the most consistent leading cause of death across the majority of age groups is: unintentional injury, accidents.

The closest homicide (“by firearms”) ever comes to being public enemy #1 is as enemy #2 for people aged 15 – 24 years.  But even in this demographic, over the 1999-2010 period, the difference between public enemy #1 and #2 is a substantial.  Over 175,000 people died in accidents, just under 63,000 people died in homicides (“by firearms”).  In other words, in this most at-risk  demographic, and even absurdly assuming all homicides are unjustifiable and caused by firearms, three times more people die from accidents.  The situation for children aged 5 – 9 years is even more extreme with homicide ranking  #4, with over eight times as many children dying from accidents.

It is therefore misguided, lazy, and/or dishonest to say that guns in America are somehow public health and safety enemy #1.  Policy-makers need to run the numbers and use the data to drive their public health and safety decisions.  Please click the thumbnail table below for more details.  Raw source data is available here.

Nevertheless,  absolutist on the anti-gun side of the debate still plainly misrepresent the truth by pointing to the number of gun deaths in America. They also like to contrast the number of gun deaths in America with those from other countries.  Both of these are faulty exercises.  The relevant numbers to examine are gun death rates, such as deaths per 100,000 people, and not the absolute numbers.  Absolute numbers help one to loose sight of the fact that that big countries like America simply have a lot more people and deaths in general, and that each year the population grows absolutely as well.  In short, absolute comparisons of gun deaths are practically meaningless.  Therefore, again, it is either a sign of profound ignorance or simple dishonestly when one makes a big deal about the absolute number of gun deaths in the United States, especially in comparison to any country in Europe for example.  The same can be said of comparing the United States to other countries with plainly incomparable constitutional provisions, and/or social and political histories.

What is perhaps most relevant for national gun policy purposes are the national rates of gun deaths combined with the trend over time.  Such trend information gives one a sense of magnitude plus direction and historical perspective.  As with pointing to absolute numbers of gun related deaths, it is simply illogical to look at numbers at a single point in time and draw policy conclusions.   By extension, it would be mistaken in the present situation to conclude that availability of guns in America now presents a national problem because 2012 was a year with several spectacular episodes of mass gun homicides.  This is because trend analysis using available government data actually suggests that gun homicides are becoming less frequent than they have been.

Official American data can once again help reveal a truth worth recognizing and internalizing:  while the national gun inventory and gun ownership rates in America have indeed increased over the past nearly 20 years, America has actually been experiencing a phenomenal decline in the rates of gun-related homicide, suicide, and accidental death.  To the extent that historical trend has continued since 2009 (the latest year for which information was available), there are actually many more suicides involving firearms than both gun-related homicides and accidental deaths, combined.  And the trend (suicides v. homicides + accidents) is accelerating.  Doesn’t this therefore suggests the more important national priority for America’s leaders has been for years the problem of suicide?  It is also important to note that, over the past nearly 20 years, gun-related homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths have actually decreased by an astounding 44%, 19%, and 69% respectively.  Doesn’t such downward trend for all types of gun deaths suggest America is on the right track?

Please click the thumbnail chart and table below for more information about American gun-related death trends.  They are based on official data pulled from mortality statistics managed by the CDC.  The date range for these is from 1993, a peak year, to 2009, the most recent year for which age-adjusted data was available.  The graphical chart depicts the death rates in the data table beside it.  The death rates shown in the data table are age adjusted per 100,000 people and rounded to two significant digits.  Raw source data is available here.

In conclusion, America needs honest leadership and public policy driven by logic and by an honest examination of assumptions about gun violence in America.  Politicians should not be permitted to take the easy way out of this leadership challenge by simply blaming guns and their availability, and by misrepresenting and overstating the problem of gun homicides.   The facts are plain and simple, gun homicides are not public enemy #1.  And to suggest otherwise is profoundly ignorant, lazy, or simply dishonest. Ultimately, the American gun policy imperative is for political leaders and civil society on all sides of the issue to strike a balance between the inherent rights of individual citizens to armed self-defense and the collective interests of public health, safety,  law and order.   This is certainly never an easy task.  Yet with the horrible memory of the Connecticut shootings still fresh in mind, and politicians poised to take action, Americans must be all the more vigilant.  Our political leaders must not be permitted to resort to policy driven more by soft emotion  and convenience than by hard analysis driven by relevant facts, trends, and appropriate problem definition.

 

About The Author

Jeff Moran, a Principal at TSM Worldwide LLC, specializes in the international defense, security, and firearms industries.  Previously Mr. Moran was a strategic marketing leader for a multi-billion dollar unit of a public defense & aerospace company, an American military diplomat, and a nationally ranked competitive rifle shooter.  He is currently studying international humanitarian and human rights law with the Executive LL.M. Program of the Geneva Academy.  Earlier this year he completed an Executive Master in International Negotiation from the Graduate Institute of Geneva.   Mr. Moran also has an MBA from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School and a BSFS from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.

 

First Published: 16 December 2012.
Last Updated: 18 December 2012.

 

Distribution Notice

Online republication and redistribution are authorized when this entire publication (including byline, hyper-links, About the Author section and the linkable URL  http://tsmworldwide.com/american-gun-homicides/ are included.   See other published items at http://tsmworldwide.com/category/published/.

Thwarting global gun grabbers: Congress moves to stop Obama from signing U.N. Arms Treaty

Thursday, November 29th, 2012

Original Story Via: The Washington Times

The United Nations is pushing gun control on a global scale, and President Obama is on board. Just a few hours after re-election was assured, the president’s representative cast a vote for the Arms Trade Treaty at a U.N. committee meeting. The loosely drafted agreement doesn’t go after guns directly, but the language enables activist judges to get creative in restricting Americans’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights. A final General Assembly decision on the treaty is expected in March, and House Republicans are locked and loaded to stop it.

Rep. Mike Kelly introduced a resolution earlier this month urging the president not to sign the treaty. “If we don’t enshrine this Constitution and these amendments, then we are in great danger of losing them,” the freshman Pennsylvania Republican said in an interview with The Washington Times. “People need to understand that we are constantly under aggressive acts to take these rights away from us, and it’s done in such a way that people don’t see it coming.”

Read the full story at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/28/thwarting-global-gun-grabbers/

Rep. Kelly Introduces Resolution to Protect Second Amendment Rights from UN Arms Trade Treaty

Monday, November 26th, 2012

In addition to the Second Amendment Protection Act (HR 3594) introduced by Rep. Joe Walsh, HR 814 sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly and 76 other co-sponsors would prohibit federal funding to implement the UN ATT and other similar agreements if signed by President Obama. Other representatives such as Rep. Joe Barton recently voiced strong support for the bill. Both of the bills are bipartisan with co-sponsors from the Democrat and Republican party.

Original Story Via:  Kelly.House.Gov

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Mike Kelly (PA-03) introduced a resolution today urging the president not to sign the United Nations (UN) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which is in the final stages of negotiation, and warns the president that if he does indeed sign the ATT, it will not be binding and no federal funds will be appropriated to implement it unless it has consent in the Senate and has been the subject of implementing legislation by the Congress.

Just hours after President Obama’s reelection, the administration voted in the UN to move forward with finalizing the ATT, which was previously delayed and is now scheduled to take place during a March 2013 conference.

The bipartisan resolution addresses concerns over language included in the July 2012 ATT draft, which failed to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, among other things. In doing so, the current draft threatens the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens, as well as United States sovereignty.

In addition, the ATT poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, placing free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality and recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, while imposing onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms.

Seventy-six original cosponsors, including Chairmen Jim Jordan (OH-04), Mike Rogers (MI-08), Fred Upton (MI-06), Lamar Smith (TX-21), Sam Graves (MO-06), and Jeff Miller (FL-01), have joined Rep. Kelly in his effort to uphold the Second Amendment rights of Americans and maintain the sovereignty of the United States of America through this critical and timely resolution, which is supported by the National Rifle Association, Heritage Action, and the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

Rep. Kelly issued the following statement:

“There is considerable cause for alarm regarding the UN’s renewed efforts to forge an Arms Trade Treaty that could trample the constitutional rights of Americans, and could seriously compromise our national security and the security of our allies, whom we will be less able to arm and less quick to defend due to the restrictions placed on us by the ATT. My colleagues and I stand committed to fighting this threat to our sovereignty and to standing up for the U.S. Constitution, which we are all sworn to support and defend.”

Background

On June 29, Rep. Kelly sent a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlining his concerns that the ATT would compromise national security and infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The letter, which was signed by 130 Members of the House, stated, in part, that:

•    The ATT should not cover small arms, light weapons, or related material such as firearms ammunition;
•    The ATT should expressly recognize the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials; and
•    The ATT must not hinder the U.S. from fulfilling strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as Taiwan and Israel.

To read the full letter, click here.

To read the Washington Times editorial titled, “The U.N. is coming for your guns,” which mentions Rep. Kelly’s letter, click here.

To read the Townhall.com article highlighting Rep. Kelly’s letter, click here.

CLICK TO PLAY (July 25 Interview on ATT)

###

Australian government pushes ahead with firearms laws

Saturday, November 24th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Perth Now

The federal government is pressing ahead with plans to create new aggravated offences for trafficking firearms or gun parts across state and national borders.

Justice Minister Jason Clare on Friday announced he would introduce the legislation into federal parliament next week – the last sitting days of the year.

“These new offences will carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment,” Mr Clare said in a statement.

“This will make the maximum penalty for trafficking in firearms the same as the maximum penalty for trafficking in drugs.”

Life sentences are a part of a major reform package announced in June to tackle the illegal weapons market.

Federal and state ministers have also agreed to develop a national firearms register and a ballistics identification network.

Experts from the United States will visit Australia in February 2013 to train police in tracing and tracking firearms.

Mr Clare and state and territory ministers responsible for police and emergency management discussed the reforms in Victoria on Friday.

It’s thought there are more than 250,000 illegal firearms in Australia.

Most are stolen or weren’t handed in after the Port Arthur massacre when former prime minister John Howard passed tough new gun laws.

National German gun registry on target for launch

Saturday, November 24th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Deutsche Welle

The German interior minister has said a countrywide database of all legal gun owners is set for launch on January 1. Hans-Peter Friedrich predicted a “considerable increase in security” as a result.

The German government plans to launch its complete registry of legal gun owners at the beginning of next year, two years ahead of a deadline set by the EU.

As with many German authorities, those responsible for weapons licensing and tracking operated on a local basis – with a total of 551 authorities around the country. Under new EU laws, all member countries are obliged to compile a centralized register.

There are an estimated 6 million licensed firearms in Germany.

Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich told reporters in Berlin that the database would provide “a very concrete contribution towards improving public safety.” Thanks to the information, he said; police would be able to check “who owns which weapons legally, across the entire country,” perhaps more quickly than in the past.

Friedrich also praised the relevant German agencies for setting up the system ahead of schedule.

“With this Germany is one of the first member states to fully comply with the demands of the EU guidelines,” the interior minister said.

Instant info in critical cases

Jörg Ziercke, the head of Germany’s federal criminal investigative agency, the BKA, said at Monday’s presentation that particular gains would be made in investigations where time was of the essence. He told reporters that in the worst case scenario, it used to take three or four months to discover where a weapon came from, whereas soon it should be just a click away.

The January 1 version of the database is only the first, watered-down database documenting only the legal registration of firearms. The upgraded registry should eventually document historical information like weapon producers, dealers, importers and any previous private owners.

The GdP trade union representing many of the country’s police officers welcomed the development, while saying that it was a little overdue.

“With this, an old demand from the GdP has been fulfilled. It took a long time, but the technical implementation was quite a challenge,” the union’s national chairman, Bernhard Witthaut, said. A sister police officers’ union issued a similar statement, saying its officers had long lobbied for swifter access to information on firearms.

Arms Trade Treaty Discussed at UN, Second ATT Conference Scheduled for 2013

Friday, November 16th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

by Philip L. Watson

New York, NY—The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was discussed at length with testimony from both pro and anti-gun groups during the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly’s 67th session.

On Nov. 7, a resolution was passed for a second ATT conference beginning March 18. The UN already spent 11 weeks in meetings for the ATT with four Preparatory Committee meetings leading toward the final failed ATT conference last July. The General Assembly will consider the resolution; it’s likely that it will be approved.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) were scheduled for Oct. 29; however, the UN was closed due to Hurricane Sandy. Statements for all NGOs were delivered in written form to the delegates. The NGO statements to the UN against guns were juxtaposed against looting in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, with many local New York and New Jersey citizens unable to protect themselves due to some of the most strict gun laws in the country. TheGunMag.com (TGM) outlined the tragic irony of the situation here: SAF: Post-Storm Brooklyn Looting Shows Importance of Gun Rights.

The Second Amendment Foundation delivered its remarks to the UN with other groups as detailed in a previous TGM stories here:  SAF, others weigh in on new round of UN gun control talks, and SAF Statement to UN Stopped by Storm, Still Carries Powerful Message. SAF also addressed the UN’s Programme of Action in August defending the human right of self-defense.

At the first committee meetings, the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense was not discussed. Canada reaffirmed the right of its citizens to own and use firearms for sporting purposes. The delegates focused primarily on consensus, negotiation, and implementation. The case was made for expansion of the scope and parameters of the ATT document from July 2012. Of particular note were points made about registration, tracing, and tracking of guns and ammunition. An official version of the meeting is available here.

The draft ATT in July didn’t win any acclaim from any Second Amendment or self-defense rights groups. That’s not stopping NGO’s like Control Arms from claiming the July draft of the ATT was “missing pieces.

The following are statements from the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC), the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA), the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), the Manufacturers Advisory Group to the World Forum on Shooting Activities, and the International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History.

TheGunMag and IAPCAR were among the first to make the July 24 initial draft and final UN ATT proposal publicly available. More information about the ATT will be reported as it becomes available on TheGunMag.com, SAF.org, and IAPCAR.org.

Statement of the Defense Small Arms Advisory Council

First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly

29 October 2012

Thank you, Mister President, for the opportunity to offer remarks from the perspective of an industry that manufactures military small arms and light weapons to enable states to meet their legitimate national security and law enforcement requirements and does so in strict compliance with the most demanding and rigorous export licensing system in the world.  We believe that a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that subjects all military arms manufacturers and exporters world-wide to a similar level of regulation can be of benefit in combating the armed violence caused by the absence of common standards governing the international trade in military weapons.  It is difficult to ignore the fact that the vast majority of states currently lack even the most rudimentary export licensing systems, much less comprehensive ones with correspondingly effective enforcement mechanisms.  The ATT was, we thought, to begin addressing that lack.

From our perspective as observers of the negotiations conference in July, it appears that the chief obstacle to achieving consensus on an effective treaty text was the insistence by some on creating an overly broad document, one that went well beyond the committee’s mandate, irrespective of the fact that such language was unlikely to ever be agreed and, even if agreed, effectively carried into force.  A treaty can be likened to a vessel: it can carry only so much freight and attempting to overload it with too many things that, although desirable to some are objectionable to others, poses the risk of sinking it.  In July, the vessel was overloaded and nearly sank; fortunately, it was still tied to the pier and may yet set sail, once the excess weight is removed.

It is our understanding that the sole purpose of the ATT is to legally compel state-parties to adopt procedures for determining if a proposed export of military arms meets basic, internationally agreed standards.  Treaty language that is narrowly focused on achieving that single purpose is, we believe, well worth working for and still well within reach.  It is to be hoped that future negotiations retain that focus and that the perfect—in the eyes of some—does not once again become the enemy of the good.

###

Statement From: Manufacturers Advisory Group

Ted Rowe, Chairman

Mr. Chairman:

I am Ted Rowe, Chairman of the Manufacturers Advisory Group to the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA). Speaking on behalf of the world’s leading manufacturers of civilian firearms and ammunition, we must insist on the recognition of civilian possession and ownership of firearms and ammunition in accordance with national law.

Unless and until the United Nations in its various proposals recognizes the right of lawful civilian ownership and possession of firearms, we will continue to use all efforts necessary to have civilian ownership recognized by the United Nations, and we will continue to oppose those proposals that do not recognize this right.

The Arms Trade Treaty to be negotiated in March of 2013 should clearly indicate that the small arms included are for military use and that civilian firearms are to be excluded.

The Program of Action as it evolves should also recognize the legitimate, legal use of firearms by civilians as well as their right to own and possess firearms within their national laws.

It is interesting to note that each and every member state of the United Nations is a legitimate importer of civilian firearms and ammunition. These imports are not for the military! These imports should not be subject to or included within an Arms Trade Treaty.

Civilian use of firearms is seen internationally in Olympic Games, in hunting around the world, in sport shooting and in recreational use.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the human right of self-protection and self-defense and the need and use of firearms to fulfill that right. This right is indisputable and is documented throughout history.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

###

Statement from World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA)

UN General Assembly First Committee

October 29, 2012

Mr. Chairman, I am Herbert Keusgen, the President of the World Forum on Shooting Activities.   We represent the hundreds of millions of hunters, sport shooters and civilian firearms owners throughout the world.  The WFSA is an ECOSOC NGO and has participated in UN meetings relating to small arms and light weapons for fifteen years.

Today I would like to make three brief comments, reflecting the views the civilian firearms community, on the Programme of Action, the possible Arms Trade Treaty and ISACS.

On the Programme of Action, Mr. Chairman, we continue to remain disappointed that the POA has failed to recognize the legitimacy and utility of civilian firearms ownership. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a continuing misconception on the part of the UN and supporters of the POA, that civilian firearms are a bad thing.  Sixty percent of the small arms in the world are legally owned by civilians. These arms are not a problem. The problem lies with inadequate control of military arms.

Mr. Chairman, let’s say something positive. At the last week’s UN meeting on the UN Firearms Protocol in Vienna there was an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of civilian firearms use. This was a positive step and we commend this action.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to a possible Arms Trade Treaty, we continue to be told that the intent of an ATT is only to control military small arms. Therefore, we request the UN to state this in such an ATT in clear and unmistakable language. For example, it could use the definition of SALW used by Germany, and I quote:

Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), are weapons and weapon systems which were originally manufactured or which were rebuilt according to military standards and requirements for use as war matériel. 

This would clearly exclude civilian firearms from the scope of the ATT.

Mr. Chairman, the ATT has been extremely politicized in one particular jurisdiction. This is a question of perception, Mr. Chairman.  As long as the ATT is perceived, let me underline perceived,  as affecting  civilian firearms, it will not be accepted or ratified in that jurisdiction.  This situation can be changed by the specific exclusion of civilian firearms that we have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, let me briefly comment on International Small Arms Control Standards or ISACS.  We are extremely disappointed in the ISACS process. If the POA has had a bias against civilian firearms, ISACS has been almost overtly anti-civilian firearms. The ISACS process has failed to respond appropriately to the legitimate concerns and requirements of the civilian user community and the firearms manufacturers. This must change, Mr. Chairman.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that notwithstanding our criticisms today we remain willing to cooperate on all fronts and venues whether it be the POA, the Firearms Protocol, the ATT or ISACS. We can be a valuable ally to efforts that address the problems of misuse or a steadfast opponent of any effort that restrict the lawful use of civilian firearms.

For further information contact Thomas Mason at +1 503 998 0555 or tlmorusa@aol.com .

###

United Nations General Assembly, 67th Session

First Committee

New York, 1 November, 2012

Statement by Richard Patterson, Managing Director

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc

Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to speak today.  My name is Richard Patterson.  I’m the managing director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute–also known as SAAMI.  Since 1926 we have created the safety and reliability standards for the design, manufacture, transportation, storage and use of firearms, ammunition and components. We are an accredited standards-setting organization.  Whether you realize it or not, every country in this room benefits from our standards.  Firearms and ammunition that follow SAAMI standards are being used in every corner of the world to promote peace, enhance economic stability, responsibly manage wildlife populations, provide recreation, teach life-skills, promote the camaraderie of sporting competition, and protect lives.

The small arms issue is complex, since small arms are tools that can be used for the greater good of humanity, and misused by those who choose to commit acts of violence.  Because of this duality, uninformed decisions can cause more harm than good.

SAAMI has at its disposal many of the world’s leading ballisticians, structural engineers, chemists, statisticians, logistics experts, and metallurgists specializing in firearms and ammunition.  We are in the unique position of providing valuable technical, factual, and science-based input into the small arms discussion and debate.  We also have access to the real-world practical knowledge of the major manufacturers of firearms, ammunition and components, meaning we can add a practical perspective to the debate.

We welcome the opportunity to share our expertise and experience.  We would like to participate in any discussions resulting from the PoA call for a technical and industry working group and—for that matter—in any other discussions on this important issue.

###

Statement From: The International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History (ICOMAM)

2012/10/24

Mr. Chairman:

I am Ken Smith-Christmas, representing ICOMAM, The International Committee of Museums and Collections of Arms and Military History.  ICOMAM is an organization with approximately 260 institutional and individual members in some 50 countries, and includes such museums as the Royal Armouries in England, the Royal Dutch Army Museum, the Royal Belgian Army Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution. For the past fifty-five years, we have served as the advocate for museums around the world that specialize in arms and military history.  We are an international committee of ICOM, the International Council of Museums, which works closely with UNESCO.

Nearly every history museum on earth has firearms in its collections.  Most of these arms are antique, or, by their historical association, are considered to be curios.  Many of them are inoperable relics, due to their physical condition. Some are excavated, archaeological, material. The ability to acquire and exchange them is essential to the scientific, cultural, and economic functioning of our museums. We are concerned that the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty will affect these types of firearms.  For instance, under proposals currently being reviewed, a museum would have to seek the permission of the exporting country, the importing country, and the transit countries to acquire and transport an antique arm or weapon, even for a temporary loan or a research project.

We submit that antique arms and museum weapons pose no threat to anyone. Rather, they are part of our common cultural heritage and current regulatory structures are adequate to control them.  Additionally, in today’s climate of constrained budgets, it is an unnecessary financial burden on museums and governments to require stringent controls over the antiques, curios, and relic arms commonly found in museums.

In short, we believe that there is simply no need for antique and museum arms and weapons to be included within the scope of an Arms Trade Treaty. We therefore request that they be exempted from the scope of any Treaty.

Thank you.

Russia to toughen gun laws?

Thursday, November 15th, 2012

Original Story Via:  English.ruvr.ru

Russia’s government is prepared to toughen gun laws after a Moscow lawyer Dmitry Vinogradov killed six of his colleagues in the Rigla office shooting spree.

Opponents to the new legislation claim that it will make life difficult for law abiding citizens but will not stop potential shooters.

Eighteen year-olds are too young to carry guns, even traumatic pistols, believe police and MPs. Russia’s Interior Ministry has prepared a draft law increasing the age for carrying a gun from 18 to 21, banning traumatic guns in public places and making a bullet casing database for all types of civilian arms, not only rifles.

The law also envisages tougher handgun permit procedure. Russia’s Duma deputy-speaker Sergey Zheleznyak believes that the measures will reduce the number of crimes involving guns but they still need reinforcement.

“We should also boost police and public security services and use the Safe City monitoring system and CCTV. More attention should be paid to extremists statements in social networks and blogs. That Vinogradov published a manifesto before the rampage where he wrote that hates all humankind.”

However, some people claim that Russia’s gun laws are already strict enough and new measures are odd and unlikely to prevent crimes similar to the Rigla shooting as Vinogradov wasn’t a youngster but a 30-year old who was carrying a long rifle which is actually banned.

International experience shows that gun bans don’t stop killers but deprive people of self-defense measure, says Gun Rights activist Maria Butina

“We know of dozens of massacres without fire arms. There were kitchen knives in China and lighters in Korea. If a criminal wants to, he can use anything. What I find wrong is to deprive law abiding citizens of self-defense.”

Rights to carry guns as well as migration and multiculturalism issues will be wrangled over forever. Its supporters and opponents refer to culture, traditions and statists. The latter says that legal gun owners commit a petty number of gun crimes.

However, everyone shares one stance – legal responsibility for illegal use of any firearms should be toughened.

UK: SAS War Hero Jailed for Possessing “War Trophy” Pistol

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

Original Story Via:  The Telegraph

By

Sgt Danny Nightingale, a special forces sniper who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military detention by a court martial last week.

His sentence was described last night as the “betrayal of a war hero”, made worse because it was handed down in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday.

Sgt Nightingale had planned to fight the charge of illegally possessing the 9mm Glock.

But his lawyer said he pleaded guilty after being warned that he could otherwise face a five-year sentence.

The soldier had hoped for leniency given the circumstances. At the court martial, even the prosecution described him as a serviceman of exemplary character, who had served his country for 17 years, 11 in the special forces.

The court was told that he returned to Britain in a hurry after two friends were killed in Iraq, leaving his equipment — including the pistol — to be packed up by colleagues.

It accepted evidence from expert witnesses that he suffered severe memory loss due to a brain injury.

Judge Advocate Alistair McGrigor, presiding over the court martial, could have spared the soldier prison by passing a suspended sentence. Instead he handed down the custodial term.

Sgt Nightingale and his family chose to waive the anonymity usually given to members of the special forces.

His wife, Sally, said her husband’s sentence was a “disgrace”. She called him a “hero who had been betrayed”. She said she and the couple’s two daughters, aged two and five, faced losing their home after his Army pay was stopped.

The soldier’s former commanding officer and politicians have called for the sentence to be overturned.

Lt Col Richard Williams, who won a Military Cross in Afghanistan in 2001 and was Sgt Nightingale’s commanding officer in Iraq, said the sentence “clearly needed to be overturned immediately”.

He said: “His military career has been ruined and his wife and children face being evicted from their home — this is a total betrayal of a man who dedicated his life to the service of his country.”

Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP for Newark and a former infantry officer, said he planned to take up the case with the Defence Secretary. Simon McKay, Sgt Nightingale’s lawyer, said: “On Remembrance Sunday, when the nation remembers its war heroes, my client — one of their number — is in a prison cell.

“I consider the sentence to be excessive and the basis of the guilty plea unsafe. It is a gross miscarriage of justice and grounds of appeal are already being prepared.”

In 2007, Sgt Nightingale was serving in Iraq as a member of Task Force Black, a covert counter-terrorist unit that conducted operations under orders to capture and kill members of al-Qaeda.

He also helped train members of a secret counter-terrorist force called the Apostles. At the end of the training he was presented with the Glock, which he planned to donate to his regiment as a war trophy.

But in November 2007, two of Sgt Nightingale’s closest friends, Sgt John

Battersby and Cpl Lee Fitzsimmons, were killed in a helicopter crash. He accompanied both bodies back to Britain and helped arrange the funerals.

In Iraq, his equipment was packed by colleagues, one of whom placed the pistol inside a container that was sent first to the SAS regimental headquarters in Hereford, then to his home where it remained unopened until 2010.

In 2009, Sgt Nightingale, now a member of the SAS selection staff, took part in a 200-mile fund-raising trek in Brazil. He collapsed after 30 miles and fell into a coma for three days.

He recovered but his memory was severely damaged, according to two expert witnesses, including Prof Michael Kopleman of King’s College, London, an authority on memory loss.

In May, 2010, Sgt Nightingale was living in a house with another soldier close to the regiment’s headquarters when he was posted to Afghanistan at short notice.

During the tour, his housemate’s estranged wife claimed her husband had assaulted her and kept a stash of ammunition in the house. West Mercia Police raided the house and found the Glock, still in its container.

Sgt Nightingale’s court martial did not dispute that the pistol had been a gift. It accepted statements from expert witnesses, including Dr Susan Young, a forensic psychologist also from King’s College, London. She said that he probably had no recollection that he had the gun.

The court also accepted that Sgt Nightingale had suffered severe memory loss. But the judge did not believe that he had no recollection of being in possession of the weapon.

VIDEO: Gun owners feel forced to defy laws in Mexico

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

Original Story Via:  AZFamily.com

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”][/kml_flashembed]

Will the Arms Trade Treaty Suppress Second Amendment Rights?

Tuesday, November 13th, 2012

Original Story via:  Townhall.com

Leah Barkoukis
Blogger, Townhall.com

The first round of UN Arms Trade Treaty talks may have fallen apart at the month-long conference held in NYC this past July, but as Ted Bromund over at Heritage noted at the time, “Now that the concept of the ATT has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. There are too many countries and too many left-wing nongovernmental organizations that want a treaty.” He was right and as Katie reported last week, it didn’t take very long to initiate another attempt. One question she raised in her post deserves more attention: “Is the argument from the U.N. that it won’t suppress Second Amendment rights an honest one?” And what about the Obama administration’s argument that they “will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms”?

Given our president’s feelings about our right to bear arms and his track record on gun control, the ATT has become an issue deserving very close attention.  Americans shouldn’t find comfort in assuming that for UN treaties to take effect, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is necessary. In a separate article Bromund notes that this understanding of the way treaties work is far too simplistic. I’d recommend reading that article in its entirety but to summarize:

“So, in the context of the ATT, if this conference produces a treaty that is open for signature, President Obama may sign it immediately. The U.S. will then hold itself to be under a legal obligation not to defeat the ATT’s “object and purpose.” The interpretation of this phrase will rest with the State Department’s lawyers, perhaps in a way directed by subsequent legislation, whose decisions cannot be predicted and are not easily subject to legislative oversight.”

Americans also shouldn’t be quick to believe the UN’s claims that the ATT will not infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. A report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” recognizes, on the one hand, that states have a right to “individual or collective self-defense” and that “the ATT does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons.” Yet on the other hand it states that because of the problem of diversion, or the transfer of weapons to the illicit market, “the arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

The Obama administration has also echoed claims that the ATT will not pose a threat to domestic gun owners. A Washington Times editorial sees right through it, however:

“It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to“take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment.”

In the end, of course, this treaty will do absolutely nothing to stop violence, terrorism and intra-state conflicts as its backers contend. The logistics alone are impossible and the fact that the Obama administration is agreeing to come together as equals with dictatorial regimes like Iran – a country which, by the way, received a top post at the July conference – is unconscionable.

So should we believe the administration (and the UN) when they assure Americans the ATT will not suppress our Second Amendment rights? And moreover, that they will not sign one that does? The administration’s keen interest in the treaty alone is cause for concern, but even more telling is when the adage ‘actions speak louder than words’ is applied to the Obama administration’s record. From Obamacare to Benghazi – honesty and transparency have not been their strong suits. Finally, the soaring gun sales in Obama’s first term and skyrocketing gun stocks since his reelection may tell you everything you really need to know about whether Americans take the administration at their word.

Wave of violence sweeps over ‘Alpha World City’ in spite of restrictive gun laws

Monday, November 12th, 2012

Original Story Via:  David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner

“A rising wave of violence” has resulted in 140 deaths in Sao Paulo over the past two weeks, Associated Press reported yesterday. Citing Sao Paulo’s Public Safety Department, the report states killings “sharply increased in September” with 144 homicides, tallying the total for the first nine months of the year at 982, including “90 police officers, most of them gunned down while off duty.”

Reports of terrible violence are hardly new, as a Gun Right Examiner column from April 2011 about a mass shooting in Rio de Janeiro reported, along with the telling fact that “Although Brazil has 110 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 50 percent more gun deaths; other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.”

As for those gun laws, there’s a telling workaround with similarities to what’s been noted in “restrictive” Mexico:

Other guns used to commit crimes come from police and military arsenals, either stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers.

The fact is, Brazil could be looked at as a laboratory of sorts to help determine the effectiveness of citizen disarmament proposals being made for the United States under the guise of “common sense” measures that promise to reduce the violence.

A summary of Brazilian gun laws provided by GunPolicy.org, no neutral party in the debate but one that “With its partners and contributors … promotes the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the United Nations Programme of Action on illicit small arms,” and is a committed proponent of global norms on government monopolies of violence.

What they reveal about the laws under which this renewed “wave of violence” is occurring is also telling: that in spite of licensing, registration, background checks, training requirements, permissions, proof of “genuine reasons,” reapplication and re-qualification requirements, a minimum purchase age, ammunition controls, restrictions on the number of guns licensed dealers may sell individuals within a given time period (with more lax rules for “retired military officials and non-commissioned officers,” naturally, waiting periods and penalties including prison and a fine for illegal gun possession, authorities have no idea how many unauthorized guns are in circulation, with estimates anywhere between 3.8 and 9.5 million.

In spite of all this, the tide of blood keeps rising, and not just in any city, but in San Paulo, a designated “Alpha World City,” that is, “an important node in the global economic system.” So naturally, Brazil is a big proponent of a “strict” and “universal” United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

This latest wave puts the Brazilians hot on the heels of top Alpha Chicago as they continue to refuse to accept that those living in soaring fantasy dreams are in for a rude awakening when terrible reality can no longer be denied.

SAF blasts Obama support for UN Arms Trade Treaty day after election

Monday, November 12th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Human Events

By: Neil W. McCabe
11/11/2012

The leader of America’s oldest gun rights legal foundation Nov. 7 called out President Barack Obama for his support of the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty the day after the election.

“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, based in Bellevue, Wash.

Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, the 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,” said the founder of SAF, which was in 1974, and which has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

“Just days ago as he campaigned for re-election,” he csaid. ”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.”

“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,” he said.

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.

According to a State Department webpage devoted to the Arms Trade Treaty, the Obama administration strongly supports the treaty potential.

“The ATT should include all advanced conventional weapons, 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. It should also include parts, components, and/or technology to manufacture, modify, or repair the covered items,” the webpage said.

Julianne Versnel, the SAF operations director, 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, she said.

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

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

Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said, “Today’s vote is step one toward a hugely meaningful human rights victory. We will be urging the United States and all other countries to keep today’s momentum going towards the final passage of the first arms trade treaty.”

Nossell said the 157 governments at the U.N. General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament in New York voting to finalize Arms Trade Treaty in March is a breakthrough.

“It’s the greatest show of support the treaty has ever received,” she said.

“Among the ‘big six; arms-exporting countries, only Russia abstained from voting,” she said. China joined France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the USA in supporting the resolution.

Gottlieb said Amnesty International does not appreciate that gun rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

“The right of self-defense is a human right,” he said.

“In this country, the Second Amendment protects that right,” he said.

EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda – More flexible administration revives U.N. arms treaty

Friday, November 9th, 2012

Original Story Via: The Washington Times

That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama’s re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations‘ previously comatose treaty regulating guns.

Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement. Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.

The administration line is that the treaty applies only to firearms exports and poses no threat to domestic gun owners. “We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” an administration official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”

It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment. Treaty backers also want to insert provisions forcing ratifying states to promote a variety of fashionable left-wing causes including “sustainable development,” even though they have nothing to do with the arms trade.

Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.

A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. With the election out of the way, the White House can move swiftly to get the treaty through the U.N. General Assembly and up to the Senate by the summer of 2013. Elections have consequences.

The Washington Times

(AUDIO) Gun Rights Policy Conference Panel: Global Gun Control

Friday, November 9th, 2012

Original Story Via: TheGunMag.com

The 2012 Gun Rights Policy Conference was held in Orlando, Florida and jointly hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org). Follow news related to the UN ATT at IAPCAR.org.

“Global Gun Control, Down But Not Out”

Gary Burres of LSSA (00.00-06.05)

Sheldon Clare of NFA (06.06-13.14)

Gen. Allen Youngman of DSAAC (13.15-23.52)

 

Drive for defensive gun rights is spreading around the globe

Friday, November 9th, 2012

Original Story Via: TheGunMag.com

by Joseph P. Tartaro

Executive Editor

The debate over the right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for defense of self, family and property is not an exclusive American phenomenon.

The subject is currently hot in Russia, in India, in the Philippines, and almost any country around the world.

The self-defense argument seems to be gaining ground worldwide even as more and more Americans seem to be joining the gun owner community and opposing additional gun laws. Further evidence of this people-driven movement comes from the Ukraine, once one of the Soviet Socialist republics, but now an independent democracy.

On Oct. 2, Ukrinform, the Ukrainian Nation News Service, reported that “after numerous stories of armed attacks, especially after the tragedy in the Karavan mall, where guards appeared to be vulnerable to an armed criminal, Ukraine is again discussing the issue of weapons.”, TSN reported.

Days earlier, one man opened fire killed three security guards at the Karavan Mall in Kiev.

“In many countries around the world, any adult citizen can buy a pistol or revolver, TSN noted, as it reported that the legal ownership of firearms has been proposed in the Ukrainian Parliament, and not for the first time, “The draft law, which would make it easy to buy a gun, has undergone the first reading and caused a heated debate,” the report said.

One of the authors of the bill, Member of Parliament Vasyl Hrytsak, believes that after the tragedy in Karavan, there will be more supporters for his legislation. “I think now we have to realize: this is the question of security of citizens,” he said.

Today, the right to guns is a privilege of just some of the Ukrainians: people’s deputies, law enforcement officers, judges and journalists, TSN reported. The essence of the MP’s proposal is simple: any Ukrainian who has no problems with the law and mental health may be authorized to purchase a gun.

The report did not discuss whether the proposal would legalize possession in a home or business, or allow the right to carry outside the home.

The law does prescribe scrutiny by law enforcement before a firearms purchase is authorized.

However, opposition seems to be stoked by some in the Ukrainian mental health community. One so-called expert, who reportedly has been studying the consciousness of the Ukrainians for many years, believes that in the current situation it is hard to establish effective control over arms trafficking.

It is even harder to guarantee the Ukrainians’ responsible attitude to arms, such experts claim. According to the psychologist’s forecasts, people with mental health problems, which are often difficult to see from the first sight, will immediately line up for revolvers and pistols.

“Let even the tenth part of these people are unbalanced, this will be enough for people to start shooting at each other. For example, at a neighbor who listens to loud music, or at a passer-by who turned in a wrong way,” Vadym Vasiutynsky, head of the laboratory at the Institute of Social and Political Psychology, warned.

Mass murder incidents in the US, where the Ukrainian media claims that free sale of weapons is permitted, from time to time there are shootings at school, at work or at the cinema.

Psychologists predict that if this law takes effect in Ukraine, it will be impossible to avoid such tragedies.

The Ukrainian debate over legalizing firearms ownership for any citizen who is not disqualified is far from over and it appears that if the current proposal is rejected, the Ukrainian people will continue to pursue a legal right to arms for self-defense.

U.N. CELEBRATES OBAMA RE-ELECTION BY PUSHING GLOBAL GUN CONTROL

Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

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.”

UN ATT: REACHING FOR RESET?

Tuesday, November 6th, 2012

New Coalition Says Current Draft Arms Trade Treaty Would Be Worse For Humanity

By Jeff MORAN | Geneva

An informal coalition of prominent academics, researchers, and advocates in the fields of international human rights law and small arms control policy-making condemned the 26 July 2012 draft United Nations (UN) Arms Trade treaty (ATT) on 30 October. [1]

According to statements made, the draft ATT is absolutely unacceptable and adopting it without substantial changes would be worse for humanity than if there was no ATT at all.  They expressed their  position during a news briefing at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, where they discussed the publication of “Academy Briefing #2: The Draft Arms Trade Treaty.” [2]

The formal official authors of the publication were Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen, a Research Fellow at the Geneva Academy, and Ms. Sarah Parker, a Senior Researcher at the Small Arms Survey.  The authors coordinated with and received input from representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Saferworld, and Oxfam. [4]

This is a significant  development in humanitarian advocacy designed to influence the unfinished UN ATT negotiations process, which is expected to formally re-open where it left off and run for 10 days under consensus rules from 18-28 March 2013. [3]  The  condemnation may embolden states aligned with Mexico to kill consensus and to take the ATT negotiations outside the UN.  This would amount to hitting the reset button and clearing the way for a more controversial treaty to be adopted under  less rigorous two-thirds majority rules. [5]

Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen was unable to be present for the news briefing due to a family emergency and so was unavailable for comment.  Dr. Casey-Maslen was a member of the Swiss delegation to the ATT negotiations.  He was also on the ICRC delegation to the Oslo Diplomatic Conference in 1997 that adopted the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which was a treaty that was developed outside the UN system and championed mainly by non-governmental organizations.

Ms. Sarah Parker sat in Dr. Casey-Maslen’s place and has been a member of the Australian delegation during the UN ATT process.  Ms. Parker was joined by Mr. Gilles Giacca who is a researcher and Ph.D. candidate at the Geneva Academy.  The news briefing was led by Dr. Andrew Clapham, co-Director of the Geneva Academy and author of several books on international humanitarian law.

 

News Briefing Details

Dr. Clapham opened the news briefing, and then passed the floor to Mr. Gilles Giacca who spoke for about six minutes.  This was followed by Dr. Clapham again for about 15 minutes.  This left over 30 minutes for a lengthy question and answer session where nine questions were answered.  The briefing was attended by over 100 people.  One professional reporter self-identified and asked the first question at the end.

Mr. Gilles Giacca first provided some historical context and motivations for the ATT.  He then listed international instruments and declarations designed to increase controls over small arms and light weapons, to reduce arms related violence worldwide:

1.  UN Program of Action on Small Arms,

2.  UN Firearms Protocol,

3.  The UN International Tracing Instrument, and the

4.  Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development.

Then he discussed the main challenges for the negotiations of the ATT so far:

1.  Defining the scope of the weapons to be regulated by the ATT.

2.  Defining the criteria to be used to condition authorized international transfers of weapons subject to the ATT.

3.  Defining the monitoring, compliance, reporting and implementation mechanisms of the ATT, for such things as the provision of victim assistance.

4.  The US insisting on negotiating by consensus rules, and so creating the option for a single country to “spoil” the treaty.

5.  The large gap between two main camps: those who want a narrow scope treaty, and those who want a broad scope treaty.

After Mr. Giacca concluded, Dr. Andrew Clapham opened his comments by stating that the ATT should be an instrument “to prevent arms from fueling human rights violations or violating international humanitarian law.”  He went on to state “what’s at stake here, I think, is that the treaty has a number of flaws or loopholes in it.  And if it were going to be adopted in current form, arguably it could be worse than no treaty.”

Dr. Clapham said further that in various places the ATT appeared to set the bar lower than existing international standards, and that this would amount to a step backwards, or a “retrogression in international standards” as is stated in the Academy Briefing. [6]

He then detailed his main problems with the draft ATT, though he elaborated many problems as discussion developed into the question and answer period.  His short-hand for three main problems were: 1) the complicity problem, 2) definition of war crimes, and 3) the balancing problem.

1.  Complicity Problem.   This criticism focused on Article 3, paragraph 3 and specifically cited the text “A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional weapons within the scope of this Treaty for the purposes of facilitating the commission of genocide, crime against humanity…” Here Dr. Clapham stated that the “for the purposes of facilitating” is too high a standard and is essentially not in line with international customary law.  He said there should be an awareness test or a knowledge test, but not a purpose test. [7]

2.  Definition of War Crimes.  This criticism focused on Article 3, paragraph 3.  In short he stated that limiting war crimes to “grave breaches” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or serious violations of Common Article 3 of those Conventions would exclude most violations that are thought to be occurring in Syria, violations such as the disproportionate targeting of civilians. [8]

3.  The Balancing Problem.  This criticism focused on Article 4, paragraph 5.  His basic point was that the use of the term “overriding” implied a balancing of peace and security v. human rights violations.  He further stated that that if the “overriding” language was kept in the treaty, and if the common understanding by diplomats was that there should be a balancing of peace and security v. human rights violations, this would be “a step backwards” because “it takes away the idea that human rights are something absolute, that there can be no violations under any circumstances.”  He suggested using other words such as “substantial risk,” “clear risk,” or even “overwhelming risk.” [9]

Other issues Dr. Clapham addressed in passing were:

4.  The treaty scope (e.g. the exclusion of tear gas and rubber bullets for example).

5.  Ambiguity about the definition for ammunition, munitions.

6.  Ambiguity about the definition of trade (e.g. does it include state gifts and loans?)

 

Observations & Other Discussions

Most of the discussion was about loopholes and weak ATT language with respect to promoting human rights.  The news briefing seemed at times, however, to be a public lamentation with the United States essentially blamed first for insisting upon consensus rules at the outset of the negotiations process in 2009, and then spoiling the draft treaty by creating the “balancing problem” between human rights and state security. [10]

While Dr. Clapham acknowledged the ATT as a “trade” and “export” treaty at one point, his commentary was delivered as if the treaty was designed purely to serve as an instrument of global civil society improvement, one that is too important to be frustrated in any way by others concerned about national sovereignty, security, and business interests, and/or the principle of individual right to armed self-defense.

The speakers were clearly frustrated with the draft ATT, and the negotiations process to date.  It was not clear if this was indicative of  just a distaste for the messy multilateral reality of accommodating diverse state interests, an acquired disdain for those diplomats and delegations guided more by how the world is rather than how the world should be, or both.

Yet the mood was not entirely down.  The room became guardedly positive when talk turned to the taking the ATT negotiation process outside the UN, to “do it right” as Mr. Giacca said on the Geneva Academy ATT Legal Blog post that was projected onto the wall behind the stage during the news briefing. [11]  This discussion thread developed in response to a question about the probability of Mexico, for example, leading a push to take the ATT outside the UN.

In response to this question, Dr. Clapham reframed the ATT as a once in a lifetime opportunity to save humanity from rights abuses, and implied that he and others like Dr. Keith Krause  (the Founding Director of the Small Arms Survey, also seated in the audience) were hoping to get a good ATT done “on their watch.”

But Dr. Clapham acknowledged a certain level of fatigue may set in and that diplomats and some humanitarian groups might just settle for a lowest common denominator to get the ATT done.  He went on to state however that “there’s a good chance, that if people realize they are going to get something which is worse than nothing…and if the Mexican leadership…has the stomach for this, it could get taken outside the UN.”  He went on to say this would allow for an ATT text to be approved “with only a two-thirds  majority and we’d arguably get a much better text.” Sarah Parker, and Gilles Giacco also commented on this situation as well.

The discussion got pessimistic again when Dr. Krause actually took the floor to make comments about Article 4 and the national assessment provisions.  He essentially declared that the draft ATT, without fundamental changes, could result in a “pretty instrument that actually doesn’t change anything that actually happens in the world.”  The reasoning being that weapons transfers would be subject to national assessment without any meaningful way for non-governmental organizations and other states to legally challenge a State’s own assessment process and decisions to export/transfer arms abroad, and this, in his words, would be “tragic.”  Dr. Krause seemed to offer that another good reason to take the ATT outside the UN system would be for “limiting the scope of malicious interpretation” of the ATT by state parties.

Sarah Parker, who works for Mr. Krause at the Small Arms Survey, then explained how provisions for increased accountability and transparency on national assessment could be added through an implemented “ATT system” when the “political climate” was better, eventually, after countries become “more comfortable” with the ATT’s obligations.   She elaborated that a State’s own national assessment decisions could be made subject to legal challenges in international courts.

Dr. Clapham even suggested how reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch could eventually precipitate court-ordered injunctions halting government arms exports / transfers provided that campaigners and advocates first help bring about appropriate controlling national legislation.  Dr. Clapham and Ms. Parker were presumably referring to more politically open states only, and the United States especially.

At the end, Ms. Parker importantly clarified that the ATT is not about creating a new tier of illegal transfers.  Rather, “the ATT is introducing a new tier which is where [some] arms transfers are considered irresponsible, and therefore illegal.”

 

Looking Forward

Dr. Clapham, Mr. Giacca, Dr. Krause, and all seemed hopeful for an ATT negotiated outside the UN system (i.e. without consensus rules, with fewer countries required for an ATT to enter into force, with higher standards, broader scope, better text overall etc).  [12]  Ironically for them and like-minded partners at the ICRC, Oxfam, and Saferworld, realizing these hopes now seems best assured if nations don’t reach consensus at the UN ATT Conference in March.

Will humanitarian rights groups and sympathetic state delegations help move the UN ATT Conference talks forward by consensus, or will they act to kill consensus themselves?

Deliberately killing consensus will hit the ATT reset button and would be hypocritical at the very least, particularly since such groups were the first to accuse the United States and others of doing this in July. [13]  Regardless of who might kill consensus in March, doing so will certainly lead to further institutional division within the international system.  With Syria now in a full civil war, and the risks of major regional conflict accelerating, more division seems the last thing the world now needs.

 

Indexed Audio

The downloadable audio for this conference is just under 53 minutes and 7MB.   It is complete except for the first few minutes of introductions.  The only edits made to the audio file were to enhance voice and minimize noise.  This said, there are some points where noise may make it difficult to clearly understand speakers.  You can download it here.

00:00 – 05:47 | Presentation by Gilles Giacca
05:48 – 20:18 | Presentation by Dr. Andrew Clapham
20:19 – 21:04 | Question 1 and response (on the United States creating the “balancing problem”)
21:05 – 24:13 | Question 2 and response (on violence against women provisions)
24:14 – 26:41 | Question 3 and response (on implications for private military companies)
24:42 – 27:37 | Question 4 and response (on conflicts between an ATT and international law)
27:38 – 33:13 | Question 5 and responses (on taking the ATT outside the UN system)
33:14 – 34:25 | Question 6 and responses (on individual and business applicability)
34:26 – 36:15 | Question 7 and comment by Keith Krause (on national assessments)
36:16 – 39:09 | Dr. Clapham response to Keith Krause (on national assessments)
39:10 – 41:02 | Sarah Parker comments to Keith Krause (on national assessments)
41:03 – 42:08 | Dr. Clapham second response to Keith Krause (on national assessments)
42:09 – 44:43 | Question 8 and responses (on the definition of authorization)
44:44 – 52:06 | Question 9 and responses (on legitimating the arms trade and exporting to third parties)
52:07 – 52:51 | Dr. Clapham clarification about transfers to third parties, and close)

 

About The Author

Jeff Moran, a Principal at TSM Worldwide LLC, specializes in the international defense, security, and firearms industries.  Previously Mr. Moran was a strategic marketing leader for a multi-billion dollar unit of a public defense & aerospace company, a military diplomat, and a nationally ranked competitive rifle shooter.  He is currently studying international law of armed conflict with the Executive LL.M. Program of the Geneva Academy.  Earlier this year he completed an Executive Master in International Negotiation from the Graduate Institute of Geneva.   Mr. Moran also has an MBA from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School and a BSFS from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.

 

End Notes

[1]  The first session of the UN ATT Conference was held from 3 -28 July and ended with no action on the final draft treaty dated 26 July 2012.  A .pdf version of this draft ATT is available here.

[2]  The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights website is here.  According to the back of the briefing cover, the Geneva Academy “provides post-graduate teaching, conducts academic legal research, undertakes policy studies, and organizes training courses and expert meetings;” and “concentrates on the branches of international law applicable in times of armed conflict.”  A .pdf of the Academy Briefing is available in here.

[3] A draft resolution before the First Committee of the United Nations is available at here.

[4]  The stated authors of the briefing acknowledge collaboration from Roy Isbister, Claire Mortimer, and Nathalie Weizmann on the front inside cover of the Academy Briefing.  These individuals are well-known representatives of Saferworld, Oxfam, and the ICRC respectively.  While a disclaimer states the views expressed “do not necessarily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on, an earlier draft,” previous public statements by these individuals  indicate strong concurrence with the briefing by these individuals and their respective employers.  You can learn more about the Small Arms Survey here.

[5]  Mexico is most likely to lead the effort to reset the ATT negotiations outside the United Nations based on its prior statements and actions during ATT negotiations process since 2009.  At the conclusion of the UN ATT Conference in July, they spoke on behalf of 90 countries signaling a clear willingness represent the interests of other like-minded states.  A .pdf of this statement is available here.

[6] “Academy Briefing No. 2: The Draft Arms Trade Treaty.”  Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.  30 October 2012.  Page 31.

[7] Ibid., page 23.

[8] Ibid., page 23.

[9] Ibid., page 25.

[10]  Mr. Giacca made reference to the problem of consensus rules and the US  insistence on them in his remarks.  A .pdf of the press statement announcing the US support for the ATT negotiations with consensus rules is available here.  Dr. Clapham specifically identified the US as creating the balancing problem when answering the first question from the audience.  You can hear this starting at 20 minutes and 19 seconds in the audio file referenced above.

[11] A .pdf of the blog post presented during the news briefing is available here.

[12] Among the people making comments at the news briefing, Ms. Parker was alone in declaring her preference for a treaty by consensus through the UN system.

[13] Here are links to press releases from Reuters, Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Control Arms. Sources last accessed 5 November  2012.

First Published: 5 November 2012
Last Updated: 5 November 2012

Online republication and redistribution are authorized when this entire publication (including byline, hyper-links, and Indexed Audio, About the Author and End Note sections) and linkable URL  http://tsmworldwide.com/reaching-for-reset/ are included.

(VIDEO) CANADA: Good riddance, gun registry!

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Sun News Canada

Brian Lilley talks to Conservative MP Gary Breitkreuz about the destruction of the long-gun registry data.

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

Canada: Conservatives defy UN gun controls

Monday, November 5th, 2012
Original Story Via:  cnews.canoe.ca

By Mark Dunn, Senior National Reporter

Rifle enthusiasts celebrating the destruction of most long-gun registry files last week have more to cheer about after the government again deferred a plan gun-control advocates say would combat illegal arms trafficking.

Opponents argue the United Nations protocol signed by a previous Liberal government would drive up the cost of guns by as much as $200 apiece, killing jobs and creating more red tape in an already overregulated industry.

Proponents argue ignoring the framework is a step backwards to trace traffickers of guns to civil wars and Third World conflicts – some of which end up in the hands of local criminals.

The protocol – on hold until December 2013 – would require all imported guns to be marked with the name of the country and year of import. It’s at least the fourth time the government has punted the regulation since taking office in 2006.

QMI Agency learned of the latest postponement after obtaining a briefing note to Conservative MPs from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews dated Nov. 2.

Toews said he is listening to sports-gun owners, retailers, distributors and importers who say the cost to engrave importation markings on new firearms would come after the manufacturing process and be passed down to buyers.

“We have heard the concerns and will not be moving forward until consultations have occurred,” caucus was told.

The Canadian National Firearms Association (NFA) welcomed the delay.

“There was significant concern in from both firearms businesses and members of the firearms community as well as many MPs about the need to go forward with a regulatory scheme brought in by a previous government when that scheme would add significant cost to products and damage the economy of an already over-regulated business,” said NFA president Sheldon Clare.

A spokesperson for the Coalition For Gun Control wouldn’t comment, but on its website the anti-gun lobby suggests the government has no intention of ever complying.

“After eliminating registration and records of sales, Canada has now eliminated yet another tracing mechanism for firearms and appears to have given up completely complying with the UN Firearms Protocol and with providing police with effective ways to trace guns found in crime and fight illegal gun trafficking.”

UK Parliament – A Polite Mad Hatters Tea Party

Friday, November 2nd, 2012

Original Story Via: TheyWorkForYou.org

Firearms Controls

Grahame Morris (Easington, Labour)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue; I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in this subject.

In the early hours of the new year, I was greeted in my constituency by the shocking news that four people had lost their lives in a shooting in the close-knit former mining community of Horden. They were Susan McGoldrick, 47, her sister Alison Turnbull, 44, and niece Tanya Turnbull, 24, as well as the gunman, Michael Atherton, 42, who turned the gun on himself.

Following the shooting, I called for a calm and measured response, but the high emotions at the time were not conducive to constructive debate. In the months that followed, I had the opportunity to meet family members on a number of occasions. They have acted in a considered and dignified manner throughout, and looked for practical improvements that will hopefully avoid such tragic circumstances, and such a tragedy, befalling another family.

A public debate on firearms licensing is still needed, and the time is right for the public and Parliament to consider whether the current level of protection is adequate. It is said that Britain has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, but we should not be complacent. Current firearms laws consist of 34 separate pieces of legislation, which is complex and difficult to navigate for the police and the public. The Home Office’s official police guidance is more than 200 pages long. The rules are difficult to interpret, and their application can vary greatly across the 43 police forces responsible for issuing firearms licence certificates.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Keith VazKeith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)rose —

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)I will give way to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Keith VazKeith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He will know that it is two years since the Home Affairs Committee published its report on firearms control and suggested that the 34 pieces of legislation be codified. Does he agree that it is now time to bring those pieces of legislation together, and make it clearer for people who have applied for and received licences, and for those who seek to get one?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)I am grateful for that intervention; it was delivered with some authority and I completely agree. The Home Affairs Committee investigation and report into firearms control urged the Government to codify and simplify the law, introduce one licensing system to cover all firearms, and strengthen the current safeguards.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of David TredinnickDavid Tredinnick (Bosworth, Conservative)I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for kindly giving me leave to intervene in his Adjournment debate. I wish to raise the issue of the Olympics, and the inability of our pistol team to train in the UK. Does he agree that although we must

consolidate the legislation and perhaps ensure that it works more effectively, we should go back to Lord Cullen’s original suggestion, which would allow gun clubs to keep disabled pistols, so that we can train Olympic athletes of the future in this country?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will come to some suggestions about how we might address that issue.

The Association of Chief Police Officers firearms and explosives licensing working group has called for a single form of certificate that

“remains desirable for safety and economic reasons”.

In terms of public safety, and in contrast to a section 1 firearm, shotgun applicants are not required to demonstrate a good reason for wanting a shotgun. I believe it important that people demonstrate that they have a need or use for a firearm, before they are granted a licence.

In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Mrs Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network said:

“The starting point should be that guns are lethal weapons and the onus should be on the applicant, somebody who wants to own a gun, to prove that they are”

a fit person to have one.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Ian MearnsIan Mearns (Gateshead, Labour)I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The House should be concerned about firearms licences and licensees. Just after the summer, it was reported that no fewer than 3,000 legitimately owned and licensed firearms were reported lost, missing or stolen in the previous 12 months.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)That alarming statistic is one of a number that should exercise the minds of hon. Members, and it adds weight to the need for a full public debate.

It should no longer be acceptable to have a shotgun without a good reason. A good reason would have to be demonstrated by the same criteria that current firearms certificate holders must meet. Good reasons for holding shotgun licences include dealing with vermin or game, target shooting at an approved venue or club, or for professional use in employment, but evidence is needed to justify those reasons. It is difficult for many, including me, to comprehend why someone would need access to firearms in a domestic setting when there is little need for immediate access to a weapon.

One of the greatest weaknesses identified by the shooting fraternity is the variation in standards across police forces. For that reason, a national licensing authority has been proposed to provide central oversight, and to ensure the consistent application of licensing procedures. Such an authority would also have the advantage of removing the police from the administrative aspect of firearms licensing, and will allow them instead to focus on the enforcement of gun controls. The financial burden of the licensing regime could also be removed from the police while ensuring that public safety remains paramount. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Bedfordshire police presented a cost analysis that showed that the firearms application fees in place since 2000 never represented the true cost to the forces processing applications. Rather than the current firearms certificate fee of £50, a fee of £150 has been proposed. I am not advocating that—an appropriate fee could be determined by any new central licensing authority.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Jim SheridanJim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North, Labour)I perhaps should know, so my hon. Friend might have to excuse my ignorance, but does the proposed legislation cover air guns, which can be just as dangerous?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)There are concerns across the piece. Whether air guns are covered depends on the definition of air gun, but I hope to come to that in a few moments if my hon. Friend bears with me.

Public safety must be the primary aim of gun control legislation, but it is clear that the police, in view of significant budget cuts, can no longer afford to subsidise the licensing system. We heard in the debate a few moments ago of hon. Members’ concerns about 20% cuts in police budgets in their areas.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Ian LaveryIan Lavery (Wansbeck, Labour)I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is on an emotive point for him. Does he agree that all aspects of firearms control should be a major concern and top of the agenda for prospective police and crime commissioners?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are only a few weeks away from the elections for police and crime commissioners. I have discussed the issue with Ron Hogg, who is a PCC candidate in County Durham, and who has some expertise in the matter. It is important that this is a local priority, but I also suggest that we should have a national framework laying down guidelines—something stricter than guidelines, in fact—to be applied evenly. Part of the problem is that we have a patchwork of arrangements.

We cannot do firearms licensing on the cheap at the risk of compromising public safety. There is also a strong case for strengthening the link between the licensing authority and medical professionals when considering an application or a renewal of a firearms certificate. We need early and proactive intervention when a firearms holder’s mental and physical health deteriorates.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Chris WilliamsonChris Williamson (Derby North, Labour)I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that public safety would be improved if a prohibition was placed on the private storage of firearms in people’s homes, if people with a firearms certificate were subject to an annual medical test to assess continually whether they were a fit and proper person to hold one, and if a public register was available so that the general public knew who had access to a firearm? The atrocities that we see are often committed by people who have been deemed a fit and proper person when originally given a firearms certificate.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)That is a good point well made.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Karl McCartneyKarl McCartney (Lincoln, Conservative)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)I will respond to the last intervention, and then I will take another one. I do not intend to declare war on the armed wing of the Tory party. I am not opposed to shooting per se. I am saying that people should be able to demonstrate a clear legitimate need before a firearms certificate or shotgun licence is issued.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Karl McCartneyKarl McCartney (Lincoln, Conservative)I commend the hon. Gentleman for some of the points he has raised, but I find the naivety of the previous intervention worrying, because producing a public register of those who own any sort of firearm might be a thief’s charter. I would like to know what experience of shooting or holding a firearm or shotgun licence he has.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)I have no experience. I have never held or shot a gun, but I have experience of a terrible tragedy in my constituency on new year’s day. I am attempting to share my experience with Members and to advocate having a review in the interests of public safety.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Jim ShannonJim Shannon (Strangford, DUP)I thank the hon. Gentleman for the balanced way he is approaching this subject. I am concerned that the focus seems to be on legitimate firearms holders, the majority of whom are law-abiding. Will he reassure sporting Members and others throughout our local communities who enjoy the sport that this debate is not going down the road to remove firearms from those who have a legitimate right to hold them?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Grahame MorrisGrahame Morris (Easington, Labour)I hope I have made that point. I am not proposing that people with a legitimate need to hold firearms, such as farmers and so on—there is a whole list of such people—are not allowed to hold them. That need should be declared as a reason for holding a certificate, and the police or the licensing authority would take it into account.

In a case in my constituency in 2008, Michael Atherton had his weapons revoked following threats to self-harm, and issues relating to mental health and gun ownership were also a factor in the case of Christopher Foster, who shot his wife, his daughter and himself after confessing suicidal thoughts to his GP.

I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Medical Association have an agreement whereby the police alert GPs to any new applications and renewals of firearms licences. However, concerns remain where an applicant fails to disclose full and accurate medical information at the time of application or renewal. Applicants are required to provide a number of medical details, including whether they suffer from any

“medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug…conditions”.

They also have to declare whether they have ever suffered from epilepsy or been treated for

“depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder”.

However, that information is not routinely checked. Licensing officers approach medical professionals only when there are doubts about an applicant’s medical history, although Dr John Canning—again, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on behalf of the BMA—stated that GPs are “not very often” asked to provide medical evidence, although it happens “from time to time”.

Following the case of Christopher Foster, the Independent Police Complaints Commission proposed in 2008 that the licensing force should be required to approach the applicant’s doctor in each case, in order to obtain confirmation that the medical information provided

in the application was correct. The omission of information from a firearms application was also an issue in the case of Mark Saunders in 2006, which ended in him being killed by the Metropolitan police. Mr Saunders failed to declare during the application process that he had been treated by a consultant for depression and for his tendency occasionally to drink more than was sensible—indeed, he had been referred by his GP. Unfortunately, on his application for a firearms licence he stated that he had no such health problems.

In my view, the solution is to ensure that each applicant knows that licensing officers will approach their GP as a matter of course to verify statements made on their application about their health, to ensure they are correct and accurate. My proposal would address failures by an applicant to disclose any medical problem that raises questions about their suitability to own and have free access to a firearm. Finally, I call for greater consultation between the licensing authority and those who are or have been a domestic partner of a potential applicant. A similar system is already in place in Canada, where all citizens applying for a firearms licence are required to have their present and past partners in the previous two years sign their application. Refusal to sign for any reason does not automatically mean that the police and licensing authorities will veto an application, but it will trigger further investigation by law enforcement officers. The Canadian requirements merit further exploration, and I would appreciate it if the Minister informed the House of any progress made on this matter.

There has been no knee-jerk reaction. These proposals are considered, practical measures that, if implemented, could allow the consistent application of firearms legislation, strengthen existing safeguards and ensure public safety while maintaining the rights of the shooting fraternity to have access to firearms where there is a good and legitimate purpose for their use.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
7:38 pm
Photo of Damian GreenDamian Green (Ashford, Conservative)I congratulate Grahame M. Morris both on securing the debate and on the tone in which he has addressed this issue, following the tragic events in his constituency. The shootings he talked about shocked the whole country. Obviously our thoughts remain with the family and friends of the victims. I agree with him: it is right that Government and Parliament should reflect on what lessons might be learned from these fortunately rare, but nevertheless tragic events, and how best we can protect public safety. I and the whole House—indeed, it is good to see so many people at an Adjournment debate—share his view that we need to approach the issues in a calm and measured way.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Durham constabulary has asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the events leading to the shootings. There has not yet been a coroner’s inquest into the deaths. Because of the investigation and a future inquest, the House will appreciate the need for me to avoid saying anything that might be prejudicial in relation to the circumstances of this case.

I understand that there have been complexities with the IPCC investigation, although it is working through those matters as fast as possible and the investigation is

now close to completion. The final report is now being finalised and it will be shared with the families shortly. Publication of the report will, however, depend on the time scales for the inquest and the wishes of the coroner. The Government will consider carefully the results of the inquest and of the IPCC investigation, paying careful attention to any specific recommendations that they might make and any implications for wider firearms policy, to which I will now turn as I try to address the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

The Government have always made it clear that controls on firearms should be targeted fairly and proportionately, and that they should strike the right balance by securing public safety without bearing down unnecessarily on legitimate users. With this in mind, I have arranged meetings with a range of stakeholders since assuming responsibility for this work. I met Deputy Chief Constable Andy Marsh, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on firearms, this week, and we discussed a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised today.

Following the tragic shootings in Cumbria in 2010, the Government undertook to take a fresh look at firearms law and subsequently considered the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which looked comprehensively at the whole range of issues. The Government published our response to the Committee’s report in September 2011. Our response sets out a number of commitments in response to the Committee’s recommendations. The Government will update the Committee, and the House, shortly on progress on those recommendations.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is generally recognised that the UK has comparatively low levels of gun crime, and some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is true that these laws are complex, and I would therefore like to give a brief overview of the main controls that are in place. There are two main categories of firearms licensed by the police. First, there are those that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. They are typically target shooting rifles and rifles used for hunting or vermin control. The second category is shotguns, typically used by farmers and for clay pigeon shooting. Both are possessed by means of separate certificates that are valid for five years. There is a third category of firearm, generally referred to as prohibited weapons, and these can be possessed only with the written authority of the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend David Tredinnick raised the issue of training for Olympic pistol shooters. In advance of the London games, the Home Secretary provided an exemption for this third category of firearms to allow the Team GB shooting team to train here. She is currently in the process of issuing new authorities to British pistol squad members to train for the 2014 Commonwealth games. This is of course subject to the usual checks on applicants and to ensuring that training is confined to suitably secure ranges. The Government will look at arrangements for the 2016 Olympic games in due course.

The hon. Member for Easington raised concerns about how the licensing process operates. I would like to say something about the processes involved—again, without making reference to the specific circumstances of this case. The procedures are similar for the issue of a shotgun certificate but there are some material differences.

First and foremost, the police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to possess shotguns without danger to public safety. Unlike with section 1 firearms, the applicant does not have to show good reason to have a shotgun, but the police may refuse to grant a certificate if they are satisfied that he has no good reason to have one. This is a different control, but it still allows the police to refuse applicants who have dubious reasons for wanting shotguns.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Ian MearnsIan Mearns (Gateshead, Labour)I raised a point with my hon. Friend Grahame M. Morris about the number of firearms that have been lost or stolen in the past year. I understand that the figure was about 3,000. In the light of that, would the people who have lost their firearms or had them stolen have their licences reviewed?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Damian GreenDamian Green (Ashford, Conservative)That would be a matter for the individual force concerned. It is clearly a matter that the police forces that do the licensing, who are responsible and sensitive about these things, would take serious note of.

The hon. Member for Easington mentioned national control of firearms and the proposal for a national licensing authority. There is a danger that a central authority might lose touch with the sort of local information that the police need. In his report on the Dunblane tragedy, Lord Cullen recommended that licensing functions should remain with the police. Previous suggestions to replace the current police licensing system with a central civilianised licensing authority have been rejected as more costly and less efficient than the present system.

Although the Government are not in favour of a national firearms control board, the Home Office guidance to the police on firearms legislation—the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, and it is indeed long and complex—is being revised and updated to help ensure that licensing procedures are applied consistently across forces. This is an important piece of work, responding directly to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s wish for more consistency. In particular, we will highlight the need to take full account of any incidences of domestic violence when considering applications for the

grant or renewal of certificates. The comments that I have heard this evening will be particularly pertinent to that.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Tessa MuntTessa Munt (Wells, Liberal Democrat)Does the Minister agree that cost is not an issue here? Where people use firearms for recreation, there is no excuse whatever for the process to be subsidised. It is not a matter of cost; it is purely a matter of process—and the costs should be covered by those who require a licence.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Damian GreenDamian Green (Ashford, Conservative)The ultimate driver, frankly, is safety; that is what underlies the system. On the issue of cost, the Home Office has received a detailed report from ACPO proposing new firearms fees to allow forces to recover the cost of firearms licensing. In considering the proposal, the Government will look both at the quality of service licence holders receive, which is relevant, and will discuss with ACPO the scope for making some of the current processes more efficient and effective. That will take into account the need to manage risk and ensure public protection.

As we indicated in our response to the Select Committee, we do not consider that separate licensing for shotguns and firearms is causing difficulties. Applying a good reason test in the same way for both categories could be problematic. For example, unlike target shooters, shotgun owners do not always belong to clubs that could vouch that they had shot regularly. However, I assure the House that we will keep this issue under review. As I indicated earlier, the local police must satisfy themselves that an applicant for a certificate is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, and will not present a danger to public safety. This is a particularly heavy responsibility and sits right at the heart of the licensing process. Such is the basis of my discussions with ACPO.

One of the most important points raised by the hon. Gentleman was about the need for medical checks on those who have access to firearms. I completely agree that it is important that the police are made aware of medical conditions that affect a person’s suitability to possess firearms. Both the hon. Gentleman and I will therefore—

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

UPDATE: UN Arms Trade Treaty

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012

By Philip L. Watson

Julianne Versnel of IAPCAR and SAF last week at the UN Conference of Parties

Executive Director

The evolution of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) from the “Firearms Protocol” and the “Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons” (PoA) for more than a decade continues despite the failure to reach agreement on the ATT this last July.

On October 15-19 the “Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime” was held in Vienna Austria. IAPCAR’s Julianne Versnel and Alan Gottlieb attended the meeting via the WFSA on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation. In the past, the UN’s “Conference of Parties” has served as a bureaucratic and educational platform supporting the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action, and the ATT.

At this meeting the “illegal” trade in small arms used for sport and/or self-defense was lumped in with various forms of crime such as human trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism, counterfeiting, and organized crime.

A resolution was passed to continue the working group’s study and recognizing the legitimacy of firearms with sporting uses.

Mexico was apparently vehement on not mentioning firearms in civilian possession. Rather, their preferred method of mentioning firearms replaces “civilian possession” with “lawful use.” This proposed verbiage would presumably give governments and the UN more authority to limit civilian use of firearms.

The Mexican delegation also hosted a side event titled “Arms Trade Treaty, Firearms Protocal and Small Arms Programme of Action: Three essential components of effective firearms control. What options for synergies?” The main stated goal of the meeting was to “establish synergies” among the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms, the Firearms Protocol, and the UN Arms Trade Treaty. During the meeting a representative from a different group advised against changing terms and contexts that had already been negotiated.

At the main meeting, a representative from Russia questioned the motives, funding sources, and accuracy of the so called “Small Arms Survey,” a yearly publication distributed by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (GIIDS) and Cambridge Press. The 366 page tome supposedly focuses on “illicit trafficking of small arms;” however, the ‘survey’ frequently veers far off track highlighting domestic laws and issues unrelated to international affairs or the UN. The publication serves as a clear blueprint and source of skewed data for a political agenda against the civilian use of firearms.

In addition to the “Small Arms Survey,” GIIDS also frequently produces “Research Notes” and “Issue Briefs” for dissemination at UN meetings. These smaller, pithier handouts are distributed at meetings backing up the yearly ‘Survey’ to constantly reiterate their request for increased regulation on civilian arms.

The UN ATT is likely to resurface again. Overall, the goals of our opposition have not, and will not change. In the defense of the human right of self-defense, IAPCAR will continue to monitor these events closely.

 

Group petitions W.H. Smith to not treat gun magazines as pornography

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

IAPCAR recently covered this story here and the response from W.H. Smith here.

To view or sign the online petition click on the following link: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/whsmiths-retract-policy-on-sale-of-shooting-magazines#supporters

Spin on ‘Gun Mags are Porn’ Backlash: ‘You’ll shoot your eye out kid’

Friday, October 19th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

“You’ll shoot your eye out kid.” A pop-culture saying attributed to the classic American holiday movie A Christmas Story.

Earlier this week, mainstream news outlets surveyed a policy by a large UK retail book store W.H. Smith of treating gun and hunting publications the same as pornography.

The policy prompted a response from the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) denouncing the move by the bookstore. Some blogs and other news outlets picked up the story and W.H. Smith is now attempting to do some damage control.

An official response from W.H. Smith (read below) essentially tries to pass the buck. The excuse was that in the past some of the magazines allegedly offered free deals on “firearms related products” that may be illegal to sell to youngsters in the UK.

What are these horrible and dangerous items in question? Well, stuff like BB pellets, and knives. Granted knives can be lethal; however, if a youngster wanted to acquire a knife the first place they would probably look is the family kitchen.

As another olive branch, the official statement offered that the policy is not new. An odd way to justify the policy and ignore the entire underlining principles of the matter.

The official statement is below:

“Our till prompt process has been in place for over 6 years and has never previously generated any customer complaints. In this respect, we have made no recent changes to these procedures. The introduction of till prompts with regards to certain shooting titles originated from the fact that a number of these publications included ‘cover mounts’ attached to the front of the magazine, that have historically included certain firearm related products. With regard to the application of these procedures across our store chain, these till prompts have only been applied to a section of gun related and shooting titles, in respect of a limited number of publications. 

We continually look at all store procedures, including the use of till prompts,  to determine whether they are appropriate in light of changing customer needs, legislative amendments and other regulatory monitoring. Our desire going forwards is to work more closely with the shooting magazine publishers to address the concerns that have been highlighted by all of the customers who have recently contacted us, in order to ensure that appropriate monitoring procedures can be applied, prior to these publications being sent to the store for placing on sale.”

SPSC/IAPCAR Shooting Event A Success

Friday, October 19th, 2012

–Photos and Notes from Christian Werbik, SPSC Director–

SPSC – Sport & Practical Shooting Club, located in Upper Austria and consisting of 35 some members, recently hosted an exceptional shooting event:

Only civilian-legal semi-automatic rifles were allowed – no bolt action ones. This is somewhat unique, as only very few semi-auto rifles are approved by Austrian authorities, e.g. Steyr AUG-Z, Oberland Arms OA-15 Austria, H&K SL6. In order to purchase such a rifle in Austria, law-abiding citizens need either a firearm possession license or a concealed carry permit. With 21 participants and the proceeds to be donated to IAPCAR, Austrian shooting enthusiasts can speak of a successful day! Firearms legislation in Austria, measured against Central European standards, is still considered ‘reasonable’ by many. However, preserving the human right to keep and bear arms on an international level is crucial to any sport shooter, hunter, arms collector and re-loader.

How the 2012 UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference Really Died

Thursday, October 18th, 2012

(H/T Jeff Moran, TSM Worldwide)

By Jeff Moran | Geneva

Advocacy and diplomatic discussions started again last week with the opening day of the UN General Assembly First Committee meetings.[1]  These meetings end on 6 November 2012 (Election Day in the United States), and  follow-up the failed United Nations (UN) Conference in July to formally negotiate by consensus a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).[2]

Contrary to prevailing reportage and opinion, the UN ATT Conference was less a failure in diplomacy, or a victory by the firearms industry and the National Rifle Association for that matter, than it was the result of abortive advocacy lead by the UK-based Control Arms campaign and its unrealistically expansive vision for a more extreme trade treaty than consensus could sustain.[3]

The Control Arms vision for the ATT encompasses 14 specific treaty issue areas under three categories: Scope, Transfer Criteria, and Implementation.  Scope issues areas include Ammunition, Brokering/Dealers, Other Conventional Weapons, and Small Arms/Light Weapons.  Transfer Criteria issue areas include Armed Violence, Corruption, Gender-based Violence, Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, and Socio-Economic Development.  Implementation issue areas include Final Provisions, Implementation, Verification, and Victim Assistance.

The Control Arms vision across these treaty issue areas can be found on their subsidiary armstreaty.org website.[4]  The details of their ATT vision are quoted below:

1.  Ammunition.  Including in the scope of the ATT all “ammunition, munitions, and explosives.”

2.  Brokering/Dealers.  Including in the scope of the ATT brokering and dealing.  “Brokering generally refers to arranging or mediating arms deals and buying or selling arms on one’s own account or for others, as well as organizing services such as transportation, insurance or financing related to arms transfers, and the actual provision of such services.”

3.  Other Conventional Weapons.  Including in the scope of the ATT “all conventional weapons, related components and production equipment, beyond Small Arms and Ammunition” which are “covered by the 7 categories in UN Register of Conventional Arms and of other conventional weapons, components and equipment.”

4.  Small Arms/Light Weapons.  Including in the scope of the ATT “conventional weapons that can be carried by an individual or a group of individuals (including revolvers, machine guns, hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and missile systems; and mortars of calibers less than 100 mm. etc).”

5.  Armed Violence.  Including as a parameter of the ATT “provisions to restrict transfers that could provoke, fuel or exacerbate armed conflict and armed violence.”

6.  Corruption.  Including as a parameter of the ATT “provisions to restrict transfers that could exacerbate or institutionalize ‘corruption’ or ‘corrupt practices’. In the context of arms transfers, corrupt practices include bribing of state officials with commissions and kickbacks provided by arms producers and traders to facilitate a transfer agreement.”

7.  Gender-based Violence.  Including as a parameter of the ATT   provisions to “restrict the transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk that the arms under consideration will be used to perpetuate or facilitate acts of gender-based violence, including sexual violence.”

8.  Human Rights.  Including as a parameter of the ATT “provisions to restrict transfers when there is substantial risk that the arms will be used in serious violations of international human rights law, including fueling persistent, grave or systematic violations or patterns of abuse.”

9.  International Humanitarian Law.  Including as a parameter of the ATT “provisions to restrict transfers when there is substantial risk of the arms being used in serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). This assessment would include consideration of whether a recipient that is, or has been, engaged in an armed conflict has committed serious violations of IHL or has taken measures to prevent violations of IHL, including punishing those responsible.”

10.  Socio-Economic Development.  Including as a parameter of the ATT “provisions to restrict transfers that could hinder, undermine or adversely affect socio-economic development.”

11.  Final Provisions.  Including in the text of the ATT “effective implementation mechanisms of the Arms Trade Treaty, including criminalization of treaty violations and an Implementation Support Unit (ISU) to coordinate international cooperation.”

12.  Implementation.  Including in the text of the ATT final provisions and entry into force mechanisms. “Effective final provisions would not allow reservations that would be incompatible with the Treaty’s purpose. Effective entry into force mechanisms would not include a requirement for excessive number of ratifications, nor for specific states or groups of states to ratify the treaty, before it could enter into force.”

13.  Verification.  Including in the text of the ATT “effective verification mechanisms of the Arms Trade Treaty.  Effective verification includes meaningful and specific annual reporting, external referral for dispute resolution, annual meetings of states party (MSP) and five-yearly Treaty Review Conferences (RevCons), and the creation of an Implementation Support Unit (ISU) to assist with, collect and analyze reports.”

14.  Victim Assistance.  Including in the text of the ATT “the recognition of the rights of victims of armed violence and acknowledgment of States’ commitment to provide assistance to victims.”

Reaching consensus during the UN ATT Conference was certainly possible, and potentially a constructive endeavor for all nations from an interest point of view.  But consensus was not likely because a lot of countries thought aspects of the emerging ATT were potentially threatening to national sovereignty for example.[5]  Nonetheless, the popular narrative is that the United States killed the Conference when it asked for more time to consider the draft treaty on the final day of the Conference.[6]  This expedient and seemingly anti-American explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, especially when you put the Conference into context and examine the armstreaty.org database about opposition to the ATT.

The relevant historical context for what happened at the Conference extends back to at least the creation of the International Action Network On Small Arms (IANSA) in 1999.  Important context also includes the recorded debate between the leaders of IANSA and the National Rifle Association in 2004 along with several formal rounds of preparatory negotiations since 2009 for example.   This is admittedly a lot of history for one to casually consider, but after surveying this period, and listening to diplomats based in Geneva, a pattern of overdone, unfocussed, and ultimately counterproductive advocacy emerges.  This appears to be due, at least in part, to self-inflicted wounds from years of overselling positions and distractive issue framing, which, in turn, appears to have damaged their credibility and cause.[7]  Ultimately, humanitarian groups, led by an unraveling Control Arms coalition, sabotaged consensus for an ATT by pushing diplomats too hard for far too much and provoked dispositive sovereignty concerns across the Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East in addition to the United States.[8]

Not only was there no consensus on the final draft ATT as a whole in those final days of the Conference, but there remains no consensus for any of the 14 treaty elements Control Arms continues to advocate for, and opposition to them is growing.  This can be evidenced in detail on armstreaty.org.[9]  While the data on armstreaty.org are not an official record of country delegation viewpoints during the final days of the ATT conference, they serve as a useful proxy indicating size, scope, and direction of opposition to the ATT as Control Arms envisions it.

Clearly, the most widely opposed ATT issue areas fall under the creation of transfer conditionality / restrictive criteria on the international transfers of arms.  The most objected-to transfer criteria remain those related to Socio-Economic Development and Human Rights.  Thirty-nine and 35 countries oppose these criteria respectively, the US not being among them.  The US opposed only three provisions cutting across treaty scope and implementation issue areas only.[10]

The accompanying table below is made from armstreaty.org data and evidences the above points.  It also conveys more important details about the lack of consensus for an ATT.  The table indicates, from a treaty content point of view, where opposition is greatest, the relative size of the opposition, and the direction of opposition since the Conference. [11]

In short, the table below helps show why the assertion that the US is mainly responsible for killing consensus at the UN ATT Conference is not only false, but absurd.  Here are nine take-aways:

1.  There are 195 total instances where a country opposes an aspect of the envisioned ATT (consensus requires zero instances or at least a willingness to no longer publicly oppose, and Control Arms attributes just  3 of these 195 to the US).

2.  There is no consensus for any of the provisions across the all three treaty issue area categories (Scope, Transfer Criteria, and Implementation).

3.  Total opposition to the Control Arms vision has actually grown in the months after the UN ATT Conference (by 12 net instances, or 7%).

4.  There is a two-way tie for issue areas experiencing the fastest opposition growth: Socio- Economic Development and International Humanitarian Law (both together account for 2/3 of the growth in total opposition).

5.  The most-opposed category of treaty issue area is Transfer Criteria (54% share of total opposition) and opposition has grown (by 11 instances, or 6%, since 29 August 2012).

6.  The most-opposed treaty issue area by country count is Socio-Economic Development (39 countries opposed).

7.  The most-opposed issue area by percentage of countries opposed (relative to total number of countries assessed) is Human Rights (33%).

8.  The least-opposed provision by country count relates to including the activities of arms Brokering/Dealing within the scope of the ATT (2 countries opposed).

9.  There is a three-way tie for the least opposed provisions by percentage of countries opposed (relative to total number of countries assessed): Brokering/Dealers, Armed Violence, and Final Provisions (all at 2% opposed).

 

Rightly understood, Control Arms’ own data help to correct the false narrative about why the UN ATT Conference failed to reach consensus this summer.  Such data clearly show that the prospects for consensus were grim at best, and are getting worse.  The data also suggest that even if the US enthusiastically embraced the final draft ATT, other countries would have probably worked together to prevent consensus anyway.

It is not a giant leap in logic to see that Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela (countries that each oppose many more treaty provisions than the US does) probably would have killed consensus themselves, especially if the United States indicated it was going to sign the treaty.  Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for one, faced an election within months.  Being the consensus breaker would have surely boosted President Chavez’ domestic political standing, and perhaps his image as a regional guardian against outside meddling.

In conclusion, UN ATT Conference died from lack of consensus.  This death was due less to failed diplomacy, or pressure by the firearms industry and gun rights groups, than it was the result of many years of abortive advocacy lead by an unraveling UK-based Control Arms campaign.  Control Arms’  broad vision for the ATT was more extreme than consensus could sustain.  Ultimately, humanitarian groups sabotaged consensus for an ATT by pushing diplomats too hard for far too much and provoked dispositive sovereignty concerns across the Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East in addition to the United States.

Perhaps a more extreme version of the ATT will be born outside the UN altogether.  If this happens, it would likely share a destiny not unlike like the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines.  Ottawa was born outside the UN because an anti-personal mine ban did not get traction inside it.  Russia, China, and the United States have still not ratified or acceded to the treaty.  And while 33 other states have not ratified or acceded to the Ottawa Treaty either, supporters argue that the treaty is emerging as an international norm on its way to acquiring the force of international law over time.[12]

Most likely, within a year, the UK, the lead country responsible for putting the ATT on the UN agenda in 2006, will introduce the draft ATT to the UN General Assembly and seek signatures from countries willing to sign it as is.  Unfortunately, regardless of what course the ATT takes, moving forward with an ATT not based on consensus will only serve to divide the international community.  As the specter of major conflict looms larger over volatile regions of the world, more division is now the last thing the international community needs.

 

About The Author

Jeff Moran, a Principal at TSM Worldwide LLC, specializes in the international defense, security, and firearms industries.  Previously Mr. Moran was a strategic marketing leader for a multi-billion dollar unit of a public defense & aerospace company, a military diplomat, and a nationally ranked competitive rifle shooter.  He is currently studying international law of armed conflict with the Executive LL.M. Program of the Geneva Academy.  Earlier this year he completed an Executive Master in International Negotiation from the Graduate Institute of Geneva.   Mr. Moran also has an MBA from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School and a BSFS from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. 

 

End Notes

[1]  The First Committee “deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime.”  It meets in October each year.   See http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/ for more information about this.  Opening day official statements can be found at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gadis3453.doc.htm. Oxfam International has a blog associated with this series of meetings at http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/12-10-12-fighting-arms-trade-treaty-un-general-assembly.  All links last accessed 15 October 2012.

[2]  The key deliverable from the UN ATT Conference was an unsigned final draft treaty dated 26 July 2012.  This draft is available at http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/Documents/PrepCom4%20 Documents/PrepCom%20Report_E_20120307.pdf.  Last accessed 14 October 2012.

[3]  The Control Arms Campaign is the flagship civil society campaign advocating for an ATT.  It started-up in 2003 as a powerful collaboration among the UK offices of Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), and Oxfam International.  In addition to having been funded by a few governments, Control Arms has support from under a 100 mostly Western advocacy groups yet views itself as a “global civil society alliance.”  There are many different humanitarian groups and campaigns, but Control Arms is the biggest.  Another campaign, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, is loud and vocal, but is not taken seriously by governments because it advocates for a total ban on the Arms Trade.

[4]  Armstreaty.org is the leading ATT negotiations tracking website created by the Control Arms campaign and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.  http://armstreaty.org/mapsstates.php.  Last accessed 15 October 2012.

[5]  Such views underpin many official views  found the May 2012 official UN document  “Compilation of Views on the Elements of an Arms Trade Treaty (A/CONF.217/2.” http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/2.  Last accessed 15 October 2012.

[6]  Here are links to press releases from Reuters, Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Control Arms:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-arms-treaty-idUSBRE86Q1MW20120727http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2012-07-28/battle-arms-trade-treaty-continues-governments-opt-delay-final-deahttp://amnesty.org/en/news/world-powers-delay-landmark-arms-trade-deal-2012-07-27, and http://www.controlarms.org/battle-continues. Sources last accessed 14 October 2012.

[7]  Author conducted interviews with numerous diplomats and country delegates in and around the Geneva-based UN disarmament community in 2012.  A consistent portrait painted by them was that Control Arms campaigners exhibited a profound lack of collective unity and focus, and that messaging was  redundant, superficial, grossly insufficient to help in a technical or practical sense, and largely amounted to a waste of time even for diplomats and delegates who were sympathetic to their cause.  Additionally, Control Arms Campaigners undermined their own efforts by insisting on adding controversial provisions to the treaty, such as Victim Assistance, which made consensus all the more unattainable.

[8]   Control Arms is described as “unraveling” because, by 2012, Control Arms had essentially disintegrated as a cohesive coalition.  This appears to be a key reason for a lack of focus in campaign execution.  The proximate cause for this appears to be a case of disintegration due to interpersonal problems and hubris among its leaders, and organizational self-interest.   Amnesty International essentially left Control Arms to pursue its own agenda in 2011.  This information was corroborated by interviews with several diplomats and an interview with a professional arms trade researcher with direct knowledge of the situation and people concerned, May 2012.

[9]  TSM Worldwide LLC conducted a comparative analysis of the website using snapshots taken 29 August and 14 October 2012.

[10]  The only Scope issue area the US objected to was the inclusion of ammunition in the treaty.  The implementation issue areas the US objects to are Final Provisions and Victim Assistance.  Source: armstreaty.org.  Last accessed 14 October 2012.

[11]  The graphic represents outright country opposition to given issue areas as gauged by Control Arms only.  The totals at the bottom of the table are counts of distinct instances of country / issue-area opposition and do not reflect the count of countries opposed to the ATT as a whole.

[12]  One group is Handicap International, sponsors of the Campaign to Ban Landmines and co-winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.  http://en.handicap-international.ca/Ottawa-treaty-good-news-and-bad-news_a186.html  Last accessed 1 October 2012.

 

First Published: 17 October 2012
Last Updated: 18 October 2012

Republication and redistribution are authorized when author Jeff Moran and linkable URL http://tsmworldwide.com/consensus-killed/ are cited.

Honduras to reevaluate gun control laws

Thursday, October 18th, 2012

Original Story Via: CSMonitor.com

The Honduran government is reportedly set to conduct a review of its gun laws in an apparent effort to combat rising violence levels, though equal emphasis will need to be made on addressing endemic corruption and weak institutions to solidify any gains.

Matias Funes, a representative from the independent Commission on Public Security Reform (CRSP), said on Oct. 16 that Honduras’ gun laws are in need of urgent revision if efforts are to be made to combat the country’s endemically high level of violence, reported La Tribuna.

Security Minister Pompeyo Bonilla said the government agreed a review of the law should be undertaken and that President Porfirio Lobo had asked that he begin conducting one.

Under the existing law, citizens are allowed to own as many as five personal firearms. According to statistics released last month by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Honduras’ homicide rate for 2011 was 92 per 100,000, up from 82 the previous year.

IAPCAR DENOUNCES TREATMENT OF GUN PUBLICATIONS AS PORN

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) denounced a change in policy by the British book store W.H. Smith to now treat hunting and self-defense publications featuring guns the same as pornography.

Julianne Versnel of IAPCAR and SAF this week at the UN Conference of Parties meeting in Vienna Austria.

Even though youngsters under the new age requirement are permitted to hold a shotgun license, W.H. Smith’s new policy bans legitimate self-defense and hunting publications from young people under 14-years-old. The new policy also requires the purchaser show identification to purchase the magazines the same as they require for the purchase of pornography.

The new policy was backed by a group called Animal Aid, Britain’s largest “animal rights” organization. Among other beliefs, the group clams in one of its own reports that “lurid, pro-violence content” of the country’s shooting sports magazines could have a “corrosive, long-lasting effect on impressionable young minds.”

IAPCAR executive director Philip Watson denounced the store’s policy.

“Clearly this store is allowing itself to be governed by a fringe group,” Watson said. “There is no legitimate proof that censorship like this will improve a youngster’s understanding of gun safety, or self-defense and hunting. In fact, I think it will probably have the opposite effect.”

“The fact that youngsters under the age requirement to purchase these publications are permitted to license a shotgun outlines the stupidity of this new rule,” Watson concluded.

“A parent has an obligation to educate their children about the use of firearms. As a mother and gun owner, I am offended that publications about self-defense, target shooting, or hunting are being treated as pornography,” added IAPCAR Co-Founder Julianne Versnel.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (http://iapcar.com/) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 23 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Russia develops its own DARPA for advancing military hardware

Friday, October 12th, 2012

Original Story Via: TheGunMag.com

by Bob Lesmeister

National Correspondent

In the old days, it might have meant a one-way trip to Siberia for a team of engineers. Luckily, there have been some positive changes in Russia since the Soviet Union government collapsed. For example, as reported by the Russian news agency Interfax, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, while touring TsNIITochMash, was shown an upgraded Kalashnikov military rifle. He praised its comfortable butt stock but was not amused to find that this wonderful stock was marked “Made in Israel.”

He exclaimed, “We can make them too!” The Russian deputy prime minister overseeing the defense industry, Dmitriy Rogozin, assured him that yes they can.

“I should hope so,” grumbled Medvedev.

TsNIITochMash stands for the Central Research Institute for Precision Machine Building, a Russian industrial design bureau. TsNIITochMash is a major designer and producer of weapons for the Russian military and MVD Internal Troops. Medvedev warned that Russian arms manufacturers risk falling behind foreign competition for both military and commercial firearms and equipment. TsNIITochMash develops most cartridges, from small arms up to the 14.5 x 114 mm, a large anti-personnel/sniper round most recently integrated in Iran’s first homemade sniper rifle, the Shaher (See related TGM story.)

TsNIITochMash also develops small arms and simulators and individual field equipment for the Russian military and conducts R&D on control systems for precision-guided munitions and field artillery systems. It is also responsible for developing new materials as well.

It seems Medvedev’s major complaint is that Russian arms producers have been too inclined to rest on their laurels. “In our country, some of our well-known defense-industry enterprises, even those that have a good international reputation, sometimes reason that what we invented back in nineteen-God-knows-when is the best thing produced anywhere in the world. We cannot see anything else; we do not want to read anything else, so ours are the best arms in the world.”

Medvedev reasons that if the Russian engineers cannot invent anything new, then they will not be producing the best arms in the world. “So, one should encourage research,” he pleads. “It is a good thing that there are many doctors and candidates of science among the workforce. The main thing, however, is not even the number of people with degrees but new products.”

In order to fix the problem, Russia is developing a counterpart to America’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the agency tasked with the job of developing new materials and weapon systems. They say what goes around comes around and it couldn’t be truer in this case. Actually DARPA was established in 1958 to prevent technological surprises like the launch of Sputnik, which caught the US napping and allowed the Soviets to beat the US into space. Now, Russia is establishing its own DARPA in order to keep up with the US and other countries’ rapidly developing offense and defense systems.

In an interview on Sept. 26 with the Moscow Rossiyskaya Gazeta Online, Dmitriy Rogozin, deputy Russian Federation Government chairman and chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission, stated that Russia would have its own version of DARPA by the end of 2012. Declared Rogozin, “We have had and continue to have pilot projects in which we are not only at the level of, but also ahead of, all the rest.” He also laid a hint of things to come. “There are things to be proud of here also. It is commonly acknowledged that the air defenses of the Ground Troops are probably among (the) world’s best in terms of equipment and organization. The prototype of the fifth-generation fighter is being tested.”

According to Rogozin, Russian troops won’t be covering any new territory or leading expeditions. “What do the Americans do? They land Marines at the other end of the world not because they are big bullies and brawlers, not to accomplish some humanitarian objectives but always and only to secure their economic interests. We have no military-expedition plans in remote parts of the world. Russia is itself a whole world with a gifted, but not always harmonious and organized, people and vast reserves of land, forest, fresh water, and minerals. We have seas and oceans around us. This is all ours and we need to be able to defend it.”

Versatility could be for what the new Russian DARPA will strive. For example, according to Rogozin, the small arms producing plant Izhmash, where most of the Kalashnikov rifles are made, can also be used to produce aircraft carriers. “Few know that the possibility of manufacturing entirely different products, not assault rifles and machineguns at all, was embedded in the design and construction of this giant plant,” he revealed. “We will hardly be needing Maxim guns,” Rogozin told Rossiyskaya Gazeta Online. “We should not be reserving shops and locking them up but insuring that the lathes and transfer machinery operating on one or two shifts can, if necessary, operate without loss of quality on three shifts.”

Getting Russia’s DARPA program off the ground will cost about 20 trillion rubles ($641,419,000). “This money will pass through production and science, in any event: for the payment of research and experimental design and the purchase of the arms themselves,” said Rogozin.

While the US outsources jobs at an alarming rate and shrinks its military capabilities under President Obama, Russia’s Putin is transferring military technology to commercial technology, to boost defense spending and to create new high-skill jobs. According to Rogozin, this is Putin’s objective. The defense industry should be a catalyst for the country’s new industrialization.

If Russia’s DARPA program continues to strengthen while ours weakens, you can expect more Sputnik surprises in the future.

College Says No to Nintendo Guns (Canada)

Tuesday, October 9th, 2012

Original Story Via: Forbes.com

A Canadian university has stopped a college game club from putting up posters that featured an image of a pistol. Except that the pistol in question wasn’t even real, but a Nintendo weapon from the 1980s.

A game club at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, decided to hold a “game-themed social event”, according to a local student newspaper. Naturally, because it was a gaming party, they drew up a poster with images of a Nintendo game controller and the Zapper, a gray-and-red electronic pistol that came with the 1985 Nintendo Entertainment System. But Saint Mary’s must have feared it was a call for armed insurrection; when the poster was submitted to the university for approval, the gamers were told to get rid of the gun, which they replaced with a graphic of a Nintendo Power Glove. Presumably because a toy pistol that pots virtual ducks sends a dangerous message, while punching out assorted lifeforms with a Power Glove does not.

I’m all for campus safety, including banning real firearms on campus. Even toy and replica weapons can be mistaken for real ones in some situations. But a crude drawing on a poster? Last week, a Maine political candidate was vilified by her opponents because she plays World of Warcraft. Now college game clubs can’t mention guns, because the mere sight of a video game weapon might induce crazoid gamers to disembowel their fellow students with plastic lightsabers. I’m sure the good citizens of Halifax will sleep better tonight, knowing that they’ve been saved from the Nintendo Apocalypse.

Philippines – PNP plans early for 2013 elections, focuses on gun control

Tuesday, October 9th, 2012

Original Story Via:  INQUIRER.net

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine National Police (PNP) has started planning and preparations to ensure a peaceful midterm elections in 2013, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II said.

“The PNP has begun formal planning for peaceful elections,” Roxas told reporters in a press briefing Tuesday.

“There will be strategic moves by the PNP now while it is still early and there will be tactical moves closer to elections so that there will less chances of violence come election,” Roxas said.

Among the innovations that Roxas wants to implement will be the consolidation and sharing of information between the many police forces. “For example, we want to provide the list of all those who have gun licenses and permits to carry in certain areas so that police [authorities on all levels] can identify the groups who are carrying guns,” Roxas said.

This will better prepare the police, especially in election hotspots, he added.

Roxas also said that they will also be doing intelligence gathering work as well as training and resource deployment. He said some localities have requested for V-150 armored vehicles because of anticipated election-related violence in the area.

“We shall be able to secure and mobilize these resources so that as election draws closer our police will be ready to respond to any need,” he said.

When asked that there might be a new PNP chief come the poll season, Roxas said assured that Director General Nicanor Bartolome, the PNP Chief, will still be on top of the preparations and planning even if his term ends before the elections.

“The more important thing is the planning for the election, planning for eight months away has begun and it has been formalized,” Roxas said.

He said that all the data and intelligence operations will be “integrated and consolidated” so that the PNP “will be more effective in ensuring peaceful elections.”

“We will ensure consolidated and integrated efforts of all units, particularly the home support units. All the data from firearms and explosives bureaus, as well as investigative units, will be consolidated so that the men on the ground will have all the data and support they need,” Roxas said.

Gun clamp call after robberies – Bahrain

Monday, October 8th, 2012

Calls for gun control are coming after a string of robberies in Bahrain.

Original Story Via: Gulf-Daily-News.com

Bahrain urgently needs to tighten its gun control laws following six armed robberies in just over five months, says a leading MP. An investigation should be launched to find out if the arms are being smuggled into the country or how weapons used by the security forces are getting into the hands of criminals, said Parliament Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security Committee chairwoman Sawsan Taqawi.

“There has been a surge in robberies this year, with robbers entering money exchange outlets with a gun and fleeing with thousands of dinars,” she told the GDN.

“No one is allowed to keep weapons and there are no shops selling them in Bahrain.

“Only people who are authorised to keep guns are Public Security forces or BDF officers.

“The question is, how are these robbers getting guns in Bahrain? Are they smuggling them? If so, from where?

“If it’s through the King Fahad Causeway or another country, what is the Interior Ministry doing about it?

“We need the ministry to answer these questions for us and we are going to highlight this issue in the upcoming parliament session.”

The Bahrain Bloc member also called for extra police patrols in trouble hotspots to try and prevent more robberies.

Her comments come as police yesterday continued to hunt for a masked man who held up a currency exchange shop at gunpoint in Maqaba.

He reportedly escaped with BD2,000 from the Bahrain Finance Company (BFC), off Budaiya Highway, at around 11.30am on Saturday.

A police forensic team was sent to the scene to check for fingerprints and CCTV footage.

The shop was temporarily closed, but had re opened yesterday.

BFC general manager Errol Fonseca said five staff members were inside the shop when the robbery took place.

“The man had a gun and he escaped with BD2,000,” Mr Fonseca said.

“One of the staff members called the head officer and we called police, who arrived with forensic team at the scene and launched an investigation.

“Although there was a robbery, we are open for business and our staff members are there to serve our customers.

“We are taking care of our staff members and have asked them to call us immediately if they sense any danger or notice any illegal activity in the branch.”

It is the second time the BFC has been targeted this year after two armed men fled with more than BD20,000 from its branch in Salmabad in May. Police arrived at the scene after the cashier pressed the alarm button, but the robbers had fled by then.

It happened just over a week after a masked gunman dressed in a thobe robbed a Travelex outlet in Riffa and escaped with around BD5,000, after threatening an Indian cashier at gunpoint.

The Money Exchange in East Eker was also robbed by gunmen who fled with BD9,000 in August. A masked gunman escaped with BD376 from the Zenj Exchange in Salmabad on September 25.

A masked man also held up a 24 Hours supermarket in West Riffa at gunpoint last Wednesday and escaped with an unknown amount.

Meanwhile, police are also investigating an armed robbery at the Najad Market in Hoora on Saturday.

Three Bahrainis reportedly threatened owner Balacheeri Mohammed Ali and worker Mohammed Yousif with a knife and escaped with a till containing BD150.

Forensic teams recovered the weapon from the scene.

Mr Ali told police the suspects, aged between 20 and 25, had visited the market three days before the robbery. aneeqa@gdn.com.bh

Costa Rica set to ban hunting, a first in the Americas

Thursday, October 4th, 2012

Original Story Via:  France24.com

AFP – Costa Rica is set to be the first country in the American continent to ban recreational hunting after the country’s legislature approved the popular measure by a wide margin.

The bill, which bans hunting for sport but still allows culling and subsistence hunting, was approved late Tuesday by a 41-5 vote. Congress will revisit the issue on Thursday, but the second round is seen as just a formality.

President Laura Chinchilla, who supports the measure, is expected to sign it into law in the next days.

The ban, which does not affect fishing for sport, does allow researchers to hunt for scientific purposes.

Hunters violating the ban would have to pay a fine of up to $3,000.

Costa Rica supports an enormous variety of fauna, and is one of the countries with the highest density of biodiversity in the world.

Wildlife in Costa Rica include jaguars, armadillos, deer, sloths and several species of monkeys, as well as a variety of birds, amphibians and reptiles.

Some two million people visit Costa Rica each year — a $2 billion business — and the country’s natural reserves and variety of species are a great attraction.

U.S. May Block Gun Sales to Citizens Living Abroad

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

Original Article Via:  Court House News

By BONNIE BARRON

WASHINGTON (CN) – The government can prohibit sales of guns for self-defense to American citizens residing outside its borders, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. citizen Stephen Dearth lives in Canada and was unable to buy firearms in the U.S. on two occasions. Federal Form 4473 requires purchasers of firearms to provide their state of residence, preventing Dearth from legally completing the document.

Dearth and the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit committed to the right to bear arms, sued Attorney General Eric

Holder for declaratory and injunctive relief in March 2009.

The District of Columbia District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. However, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the dismissal and remanded Dearth’s claims in April 2011.

U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins granted the government’s motion for summary judgment on Thursday.

Wilkins found that none of the six counts alleged by Dearth amounted to constitutional violations.

The judge stated that, “an initial point of contention is how to construe the challenged laws. Are they restrictions on possession, or are they longstanding conditions and qualifications on commercial sale?

“The court concludes they are the latter,” Wilkins wrote.

Much like the state laws that have prevented non-residents from buying firearms for more than 100 years, the federal restrictions have a similar intent, the judge found.

“The effect of the federal statute is to require a firearm purchaser to be a state resident so that he or she submits to the jurisdiction and authority of some state – any state – so that the firearms purchase can be regulated by state law,” Wilkins wrote. “Thus, the federal statutes serve a similar purpose as the longstanding state statutes governing the commercial sale of firearms.”

Dearth argued that his inability to buy a gun for self-defense while visiting his friends and relatives in the U.S. violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

But Wilkins found that Dearth “…has the ability to bring his firearm from Canada with him when he visits the United States. Critically, Dearth concedes that ‘he would access [firearms] for lawful sporting purposes as well as for other purposes, including self-defense, while visiting the United States’…Thus, Dearth clearly has the ability to borrow or rent a firearm for lawful sporting purposes and then also use that firearm for self-defense. This would be a much different case if Dearth had none of those options.”

Dearth also failed to show that the gun restrictions infringe on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by requiring him to give up his ability to buy firearms if he chooses to travel internationally.

“As the government correctly points out, these provisions do not prevent Dearth from travelling internationally and, therefore, they do not implicate any Fifth Amendment liberty interest in international travel,” Wilkins wrote. “There is nothing to suggest that the challenged statutes present either a direct or coincidental restriction on a U.S. citizen’s ability to travel internationally.

The statutes merely require that Dearth establish residency in a state in order to purchase or acquire additional firearms for purposes other than sporting purposes. The statutes place no direct restriction on Dearth’s ability to travel within the United States or internationally.”

Wilkins found that the restrictions were rationally based. “The provisions serve the substantial government interests of protecting public safety, combating violent crime, and controlling the flow of firearms across state and international borders,” Wilkins stated.

The order concludes that the same rational basis holds true against Dearth’s Equal Protection claims.  

UN launches first “standards” during August follow-up to ATT

Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

by Joseph. P. Tartaro

Executive Editor

In late August, an umbrella organization of 23 separate United Nations (UN) agencies known as the Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) adopted the first portion of International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS). The ISACS text is made up of 33 separate modules, some 800 pages in total. So far, eight modules have been adopted as the result of a process begun in the spring.

An Experts Reference Group (ERG), which included a small number of professionals with firearms experience, including Richard Patterson, managing director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), provided constructive criticisms on the first draft text of these modules.

A second draft, however, revealed that numerous issues identified by the ERG had not been addressed; a fundamental violation of the legitimate standard-setting process.

In response, SAAMI prepared a detailed minority report that Patterson submitted to the ISACS project coordinator covering a range of these issues.

“Sadly, SAAMI is forced to conclude that ISACS has and will continue to fail in the creation of clear and effective guidance because of breaches in standards- setting protocols, and dogmatic adherence to unsubstantiated assumptions, agendas and biases,” Patterson said in a March statement before a UN committee working on the matter.

In another statement delivered at an Aug. 29 UN conference, Patterson described ISACS as “… nothing more than a platform for adoption and pseudo-legitimization of the ‘wish lists’ of special interest groups.” “Advocates of gun control make two fundamental assumptions: First, that more guns will equal more violence and, second, that more gun control will equal less violence. Both of these assumptions are confounded by history and by facts. They are simply not true.

Countries with high rates of gun ownership have low rates of violence and countries in which civilian ownership of guns is banned have high rates of violence. Ignoring these facts can cause harm by removing the means by which people protect themselves, their families and their communities—and thereby protect their rights to self-determination,” Patterson said.

Patterson was not the only one to speak against many of the protocols under consideration under the umbrella of the Programme of Action (PoA) launched in 2001. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a binding agreement that included small arms and ammunition, was supposed to be adopted in July but failed when the United States, Russia, and several other countries did not agree to draft language. Rather than abandon the global gun control agenda, proponents of the ATT focused on moving forward incrementally under the PoA.

Others besides SAAMI speaking out at the UN in August against the planned implementation of global gun control under the PoA included representatives of the World Forum on the Future of the Shooting Sports (WSFA), Canada’s National Firearms Association (NFA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Defense Small Arms Advisory Council (DSAAC).

SAF’s Director of Operations Julianne Versnel, reminded the UN that “if women have the right to be protected against violence, then they have the right to protect themselves against violence.” Supporters of the global gun control agenda have been trying to play the “women’s rights” card, but Versnel’s remarks were unlike anything many delegates at the UN had ever heard before.

Noting that she had reviewed what had already been written and said about the violence against women as it relates to the Programme of Action, Versnel emphasized that, “I am struck by what is not said.” “If there is a basic sanctity of a woman’s person,” she observed, “if there is a right to not be a victim of sexual or personal violence, then that right involves the right to defend one’s self.” Versnel stressed that any new global gun control initiatives must “do nothing to disarm women who legitimately and rightfully want to defend themselves.” Perhaps Versnel’s warnings may open up a new and politically uncomfortable arena for the prohibitionists.

“The drive for human rights is a force throughout the world,” Versnel stated, “and especially here at the UN. A woman’s right to be free from violence is a fundamental human right. That fundamental right is to defend one’s self. The report of this conference should state that without reservation.” Canada’s NFA was the only Canadian pro-firearms group represented during the non-governmental organization presentations at the Second Review Conference of the PoA.

NFA President Sheldon Clare told TGM, “It was important for the NFA to be present at this conference for four main reasons. First, the PoA is alive and potentially dangerous—this was a well-attended conference and vigilance is critical. Second, it was necessary for us to make sure that there was no attempt to make this the Arms Trade Treaty consolation round, or in any way broaden the scope of the PoA. Third, we needed to make our concerns known about the aims of some to include firearms components and ammunition, and to make it clear that we are speaking out strongly in support of civilian rights of self-defense—the only Canadian organization to do so. The fourth reason we were there was to use our strong voice to support our friends.” According to Clare, “The government (Canada) seems to be headed in the right direction. I was pleased to hear the concise and clear presentation by Senior Policy Advisor Kim Joslin of the Canadian Delegation which was in strong support of firearms owners. In particular, Canada supported the US position which opposes including any aspect of components or ammunition being included in the PoA.”

UN’s “Outcome document” for the Programme of Action to Prevent Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

Friday, September 21st, 2012

Document can be seen at:  UN’s “Outcome document” for the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

Original Document Via:  United Nations Review Conference 2012 Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons

 

Ottawa will appeal Quebec gun registry ruling

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

Original Story Via: CBC News

The federal government plans to appeal a Quebec court ruling blocking it from destroying Quebec’s portion of gun registry records and ordering that the data be given to the province.

Minister of State Maxime Bernier told the House of Commons Monday the government will appeal the Quebec Superior Court decision.

On Sept. 10, Superior Court Judge Marc-Andre Blanchard voided two sections of the Conservative government’s legislation to scrap the long-gun registry.

Blanchard ordered the federal government to give all records on Quebec-owned rifles and shotguns in the registry to the provincial government within 30 days.

The Conservatives have been adamant about scrapping the long-gun registry and destroying the existing data.

“The will of Parliament and Canadians has been clear,” said Public Security Minister Vic Toews Monday, in a prepared statement. “We do not want any form of a wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry.

“The NDP has consistently said that if given the chance they would try and use this data to target law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters in the regions of Quebec. Our Conservative government will always stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

The federal government has said in the past that any province that wants its own registry is welcome to start from scratch.

Sportlich-Praktischer Schützen Club Holding IAPCAR Charity Shoot Competition! Trophy and Cash Prizes! Saturday 13, October 2012

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Courtesy of Sportlich-Praktischer Schützen Club (SPSC)

To read original charity shoot invitation from SPSC please click here!

Location:  Innviertler Schützenhof, Miinsteuer 8, 4980 Antiesenhofen (Schießstätte IHS – Innviertler Hofschützen)

Organizer:  SPSC – Sporty and Practical Shooting Club

Date:  Saturday 13, October 2012

Time:  From 13:00 to 17:00 (close)

Entry fee:  20 – Eur. including state fee. The Excess of revenues competition our expenses we will give to IAPCAR – International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights http://iapcar.org/!

Weapons:  Require approval from including automatic rifles Caliber .223 Rem up (eg Steyr AUG-Z, Oberland Arms Austria OA-15 / OA-10 Austria, Austria SG 550, HK SL-6)

Sights:  Each optical sights or magnification allowed; also open sights!

Program:  100m sitting launched; SPSC pistol target, 5 shots for Sample – then 2x 10 shot score (maximum 220 points, timeout 5 minutes); trophy and cash prizes!

Important:  Prior notification by e-mail are welcome! Weapons and Ammunition from the shooter bring your own! No lasers!

For more information please contact:

www.sportlich-praktisch.org

info@sportlich-praktisch.org

SPSC – Sportlich-Praktischer Schützen Club
ZVR# 039439401
Tel.: +43 660 733 5990

 

United Nations Launches First Small Arms Control “Standards”

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012

Original Story Via: TheDailyCaller

NEWTOWN, Conn. — In late August, an umbrella organization of 23 separate U.N. agencies known as the Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) adopted the first portion of International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS). The ISACS text is made up of 33 separate modules, some 800 pages in total. So far, eight modules have been adopted as the result of a process begun in the spring.

An Experts Reference Group (ERG), which included a small number of professionals with firearms experience, including Richard Patterson, managing director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), provided constructive criticisms on the first draft text of these modules. A second draft, however, revealed that numerous issues identified by the ERG had not been addressed, a fundamental violation of the legitimate standard-setting process.

In response, SAAMI prepared a detailed minority report that Patterson submitted to the ISACS project coordinator covering a range of these issues.

“Sadly, SAAMI is forced to conclude that ISACS has and will continue to fail in the creation of clear and effective guidance because of breaches in standards-setting protocols, and dogmatic adherence to unsubstantiated assumptions, agendas and biases,” Patterson said in a March statement before a U.N. committee working on the matter.

In another statement delivered at an Aug. 29 U.N. conference at the U.N., Patterson described ISACS as “. . . nothing more than a platform for adoption and pseudo-legitimization of the ‘wish lists’ of special interest groups.”

“Advocates of gun control make two fundamental assumptions: First, that more guns will equal more violence and, second, that more gun control will equal less violence. Both of these assumptions are confounded by history and by facts. They are simply not true. Countries with high rates of gun ownership have low rates of violence and countries in which civilian ownership of guns is banned have high rates of violence. Ignoring these facts can cause harm by removing the means by which people protect themselves, their families and their communities — and thereby protect their rights to self-determination.”

About SAAMI
Founded in 1926 at the request of the U.S. Federal Government, SAAMI is an association of the nation’s leading manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition and components. It publishes voluntary industry standards, coordinates technical data and promotes safe and responsible firearm use. It handles both domestic and international technical and regulatory issues that affect safety and reliability of firearms, ammunition and components. For more information, visit www.saami.org.

IAPCAR’s Phil Watson featured as leadership graduate of the week

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012

Original Story Via:  LeadershipInstitute.org

Phil Watson of IAPCAR was featured this week as the Leadership Institute’s Graduate of the Week.

Click here to read the article directly from Leadership Institute’s website.

Article text below

Protecting and Defending: Second Amendment Liberty

These famous words in the Bill of Rights have stirred countless emotion and action for centuries: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The right to keep and bear arms is what Leadership Institute graduate Phil Watson has devoted his time and talent toward preserving.

“You are born sovereign with rights given by God, not government. The right of self-defense is one of those rights,” Phil told the Leadership Institute. “Gun rights groups are here to protect your human and civil rights. The police can’t be everywhere at once and are technically not even bound by law to protect you, so you have to take your Second Amendment rights seriously.”

Phil is the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) director of special projects, where he researches Second Amendment court litigation and news surrounding gun issues on a national and international scale.

“Keeping track of the dozens of current Second Amendment lawsuits and opposing the UN Arms Trade Treaty takes up a lot of my time,” Phil said. “Our network of member groups now extends to 23 groups in 15 different countries. Communicating with your base and your members in a timely manner is very important. I also assist in writing and editing various Second Amendment publications.”

Additionally, he’s executive director at the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arm Rights.

“The numbers don’t lie: gun-free zones suffer from high crime rates and only create more victims,” Phil said. “People who have a problem with self-defense usually have a problem with other freedoms and rights as well, which are historically why tyrannical governments like to disarm their people. We are here to stick up for your rights and speak out against those that would force others to be helpless.”

However, Phil hasn’t always been involved in public policy. It’s been a career in the making.

Phil was raised in a “minimum-wage-working world,” where he delivered newspapers to neighbors to earn an extra dime. He also remembers doing yard work and washing dishes at a local restaurant to collect some additional money.

“After I graduated high school, I entered the military and waited awhile to start college,” Phil said. “History, economics, and politics became my favorite subjects after trying most other classes. Later, I had the pleasure of graduating from the University of Washington with a B.A. in Political Economy.”

With a degree in hand, he met some political activists who were regular patrons at the large neighborhood convenience store where he worked.

After several long talks, one of the individuals invited him to work on his campaign.

“It sounded interesting, so I decided to give it a shot. Several people highly recommended the Leadership Institute, so I took the Campaign Management School and was off and running,” Phil shared.

In April 2010, Phil came to LI’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia to attend the week-long Campaign Management School.

Shortly after, he was asked to be the deputy campaign manager for the 2010 WA-6 congressional race. The opponent was a 17-term incumbent, Rep. Norm Dicks, and while Phil’s candidate didn’t win, Phil valued the experience he gained.

After the election, Phil fought against Proposition 1 – a local sales tax increase. “We won with some creative campaigning and tactics I picked up from LI’s Campaign Management School,” Phil said. “We were outgunned on money by 95 percent, but ended up winning. We defeated the sales tax increase.”

After the campaign, Phil came to the Leadership Institute in the spring of 2011 to intern in the Grassroots department. He’s taken 16 LI trainings from Public Speaking, Campaign Management, New Media, High-Dollar Fundraising, Television Techniques, Youth Leadership, and Conservative Career workshops and schools.

“LI is a political boot camp in many ways,” Phil shared. “I jumped in the political world and was serious about learning how to be effective as an activist. The Leadership Institute taught me how to be effective within a political organization and I still talk with a lot of the people I met there. LI is a great place to learn and connect with other people on the same path.”

After LI’s internship, Phil received a press internship in the office of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, vice chair of the House Republican Conference and highest ranking Republican woman in Congress.

Next, he trekked across America back to his home state of Washington to influence public policy and protect the right to keep and bear arms.

Read Phil’s interview with the Russian Legal Information Agency here.

His employer—the Second Amendment Foundation—has their 2012 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Orlando, Florida in a few weeks. To learn more, go here.

“LI trainings helped give me a good foundation for the journey ahead,” Phil said.

You too can build a good foundation for your public policy career. Register for one of LI’s upcoming trainings here.

Please welcome Phil Watson as LI’s Graduate of the Week.

Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot, was ‘plagued by break-ins’ (UK)

Thursday, September 6th, 2012

Original Story Via:  The Telegraph

By

A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies.

The man is believed to have grabbed a legally owned gun after they were disturbed by the break-in early yesterday.

He is understood to have fired at the intruders who then fled the isolated house at Melton Mowbray, Leics, before calling the police.

Minutes later, an ambulance was called to treat a man with gunshot injuries nearby. It is understood that call was made by one of the suspected burglars.

The arrested man’s mother said: “This is not the first time they have been broken into.

“They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty.

Related Articles

“They have not been injured but property has been stolen.”

Local farmers said the area has been increasingly targeted by car thieves.

One said: “We had three Land Rovers stolen. We had fitted one with a tracker and it was recovered in Birmingham.”

A second man was later treated for gunshot injuries after arriving at Leicester Royal Infirmary, 10 miles from the scene of the shooting. Neither of the men is said to be seriously injured.

Yesterday the businessman and his wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. Four men, understood to be the suspected burglars, were also arrested.

The case will reignite the debate over a householder’s right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate.

Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years’ jail.

In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.

Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.

The case prompted David Cameron to announce that home owners and shopkeepers would have the right to protect themselves against burglars and robbers.

Last year, Peter Flanagan, 59, who fatally stabbed a burglar armed with a machete at his home in Salford, Great Manchester, escaped prosecution after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled that he was acting in self defence.

Yesterday the Melton Mowbray cottage was sealed off by police. Welby Grange Farm is owned by John Hobill, 84, and his wife Evelyn, 76, and is the registered address for JT and RT Hobill, which lists itself as a farming business.

A woman who answered the phone said they were “not allowed” to talk about the incident. She said the cottage was privately rented and the incident was nothing to do with the family that owned the farm. She said the person living there was not a farmer.

A Leicestershire Police spokesman said: “A 35-year-old man and a 43-year-old woman were arrested in Melton on suspicion of GBH and four men, aged 27, 23, 31 and 33, were arrested at Leicester Royal Infirmary on suspicion of aggravated burglary.” All remain in custody.

Continuous drip-drip of distorted gun-related news reporting

Thursday, September 6th, 2012

Derek Bernard

6th September 2012

During the afternoon of Wednesday, 5th September, a British family were attacked in their car while on holiday in France, near Chevaline. The 3 adults were shot to death, together with a cyclist, while 2 little girls in the car survived the attack.

Many of the news reports attempt to link the event to the strictness, or lack of it, of gun control in France.

For instance, Henry Samuel, Daily Telegraph, 5th September 2012, included the following:

“France has one of the highest levels of civilian gun ownership in Europe, with far more relaxed gun laws than the UK.

Handguns, semi-automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns are legal if held by active gun club members who must have a licence for them and undergo a medical check.”

As with virtually everything uttered by governments, police and the media on the subject of gun control, gun ownership and criminal violence, the purported linkage has no connection to reality. But this constant, almost subliminal, flow of distortion maintains and strengthens the fearful fantasy that guns, in and of themselves, are dangerous, nasty things that will turn ordinary, non-violent people into criminals and ordinary criminals into murderers.

This fantasy is what drives the European love of complex, expensive, slow and inconvenient gun control procedures, such as gun registration.

In 2007 the Harvard Journal on Law & Public Policy published an article by 2 of the world’s leading researchers, Professor Gary Mauser and lawyer Don Kates. It contained this interesting paragraph:

“One statistic stands out: There are 9 European nations which have less than 5,000 guns per 100,000 population and 7 that have more than 15,000 guns. The average murder rate of the 9 low-gun ownership nations is 3 times higher than the murder rate of the 7 high gun ownership nations. That is apparently because nations w/ high murder rates adopt stringent gun laws, but these don’t work, so high murder rates come to coincide w/ low gun ownership.”

I don’t expect it to be published, but I have sent the following letter to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph:

Dear Sir,

It was very disappointing to read your correspondent, Henry Samuel (5th/6th September), attempting to link the laxity or otherwise of French gun control laws with the murder of a family of British tourists.

French gun laws are not “relaxed”. Like the UK’s they are complex, expensive and highly anti-social in their effects. In addition to their negative effects on sport, pest control, hunting, manufacture and distribution, as well as police efficiency, they, just as in the UK, disarm honest victims.

Does Mr Samuel think that these killers, who clearly wanted to kill every witness to whatever they were up to, went to the “relaxed” French police and asked if they could have a gun or two as they had some murders to commit?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Bernard

Jersey

Gun owners shuffle weapons to confuse registry (Canada)

Friday, August 31st, 2012

Original Story Via:  WellandTribune.ca

By Kris Sims

BRIDGEWATER, N.S. – Thousands of gun owners are swapping their shotguns and rifles with friends and neighbours in an effort to obliterate the defunct federal long-gun registry.

“More than two million law abiding Canadians are sick of being portrayed as criminals so we are calling on them to swap their guns so we can make the old data totally useless,” said Tony Bernardo, spokesman with the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.

“More than 2,000 guns were shuffled on Thursday.”

Firearms ownership advocates worry that because the Quebec has filed an injunction to save the data in the long-gun registry so it can set up its own, that it will one day come back from the dead and be used to track long-gun owners across Canada once again.

A women’s shelter in Toronto is also in court trying to keep the data.

Dubbed “The Great Canadian Gun Registry Shuffle,” owners are trading and selling firearms without using the old registry numbers, making the old data inaccurate.

“We are taking the new law all the way, doing what the House of Commons said we could because these left-wing groups seem to want to put up blocks to what the government decided,” Bernardo said.

Introduced by the federal Liberal government in 1995, the long-gun registry was a database used to track owners of rifles and shotguns in Canada.

It ran over budget and was largely loathed in rural and Western Canada, with many farmers and hunters feeling targeted by police and politicians.

The Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance and eventually the Conservative Party all promised to scrap the registry. After winning a majority, the Tories passed a law this past spring to officially stop the registry and ordered the data destroyed.

Many groups wanted to keep the registry, saying that it assisted police in finding guns and reduced violence against women.

Quebec has gone to court asking to keep the data for their own purposes and has stalled the destruction of all files.

kris.sims@sunmedia.ca

Twitter: @kris_sims

Canada’s NFA to UN: ‘Self-defense is a natural right’

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

Canada’s National Firearms Association was the only Canadian pro-firearms group represented during the non-governmental organization presentations at the Second Review Conference of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.  (PoA)

According to NFA President Sheldon Clare, “It was important for the NFA to be present at this conference for four main reasons.  First, the PoA is alive and potentially dangerous – this was a well-attended conference and vigilance is critical.  Second, it was necessary for us to make sure that there was no attempt to make this the Arms Trade Treaty consolation round, or in any way broaden the scope of the PoA.  Third, we needed to make our concerns known about the aims of some to include firearms components and ammunition, and to make it clear that we are speaking out strongly in support of civilian rights of self-defense – the only Canadian organization to do so.   The fourth reason we were there was to use our strong voice to support our friends.”

According to Clare, “The government seems to be headed in the right direction.  I was pleased to hear the concise and clear presentation by Senior Policy Advisor Kim Joslin of the Canadian Delegation which was in strong support of firearms owners.  In particular, Canada supported the US position which opposes including any aspect of components or ammunition being included in the PoA.  Government representatives Habib Massoud and Steve Torino will be attending the second week of the conference.    It was clear to me in listening to the speeches from delegates that it will be difficult to achieve consensus on several aspects of the PoA‘s implementation plan in the two weeks allotted”.

The NFA and other World Forum (WFSA) members, presented to the UN Conference during the NGO session on Wednesday, August 29 and the text of the speech given by NFA President Sheldon Clare is reproduced below:

STATEMENT TO UNITED NATIONS ON PROGRAMME OF ACTION ON SMALL ARMSS and LIGHT WEAPONS

Madame President, I am Sheldon Clare, President of Canada’s National Firearms Association.

The NFA is Canada’s largest advocacy organization representing the rights of Canadian firearms owners.  Our members are concerned that UN attempts to regulate small arms and light weapons are misdirected and will have an unjustifiably harmful effect upon the ability of free people to have access to firearms and ammunition for perfectly legitimate purposes. The NFA rejects as false that civilian access to small arms is the problem.

Canada’s National Firearms Association (NFA) recommends that controls on small arms and light weapons be limited solely to major crew-served weapon systems possessed or sold by nation states – not individually operated firearms owned or desired to be owned by civilians, also called non-state actors. The rights and property of Canadians, and our firearms businesses engaged in the lawful trade in firearms and ammunition, including surplus firearms and ammunition, must not be subject to UN edict or control.  Quite simply, firearms ownership and use are matters of national sovereignty, civil freedoms, property rights, and are related to national culture.  Also, control of ammunition, including marking beyond caliber, date, and manufacturer would be excessive; it is unreasonable, unnecessary, and fiscally impossible to uniquely mark ammunition.

Small arms in civilian hands allow people to defend themselves from aggression. Self-defense is a natural right of all individuals. This is especially important in the event of unrest and disorder, or in case of state-mandated crimes against humanity. Civilian ownership of arms is an important factor in preventing and limiting the effect of government-encouraged murders such as what occurred in Srebrenica and Rwanda. Disarmed in Srebrenica by UN peacekeepers and in Rwanda by their own government, these people were helpless in the face of organized aggression, especially when in both cases the UN was powerless to provide protection. While governments need to act against terrorism, disarming civilians violates fundamental democratic principles.  Perhaps Governments should deal with unrest by addressing the economic situations, political differences, and human rights issues that contribute to people agitating for change rather than engaging in one size fits all solutions affecting the rights of free people to own and use firearms.
Thank you for your consideration Madame President.”

Clare concluded: “Other matters to be watchful of are the UN International Small Arms Control Standards, (see http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/) and what happens with the Arms Trade Treaty talks (ATT) which broke up without consensus in July.  There will need to be a vote at the General Assembly if it is to come back next year, which may not be possible due to the UN’s two year budgetary cycle.  Simply put, there may not be much support to reopen the ATT so soon in the face of no consensus. Nonetheless, strange things happen at the UN and the NFA has been present to protect the civil and property rights of Canadian Firearms Owners.”

UN hits and misses between the illegal arms trade and the right to bear arms

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Russian Legal Information Agency

MOSCOW, August 30 – RAPSI, Ingrid Burke. The United Nations is currently hosting its second conference in as many months aimed at regulating illicit arms trafficking. July’s conference strived, albeit unsuccessfully, to reach consensus on a binding international treaty that would regulate the global arms trade as a whole. The conference currently underway aims only to review the progress made by UN member nations individually and the international community as a whole in terms of the implementation of an action plan adopted by consensus in 2001 in order to combat the illegal trade of small arms and light weapons.

Both conferences centered on documents- the first a working document that never earned its wings and the second a binding agreement. Both documents are rooted in concern over the illicit arms trade, but one reached consensus and has entered into force on national, regional, and global levels, and one provoked a heated public controversy that endured beyond the deadline for approval by consensus.

To get into the spirit of things, RAPSI has decided to compare and contrast the documents underlying and the controversies surrounding the two initiatives in an effort to better understand what caused the former to sink and the latter to swim.

The UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty

Between 2-27 July, representatives of all 193 member nations gathered at the UN headquarters in New York with the common goal of establishing: “a robust and legally binding arms trade treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,” in the words of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Negotiations deteriorated in the last few days of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference as competing national interests gave way to stubborn resistance.

A draft of the treaty released shortly before the conference deadline was harshly criticized both by right-to-bear-arms activists and by their human rights/disarmament counterparts. The former took issue with what they perceived to be an overly broad range of arms and activities sought to be regulated. The latter took issue with what they perceived to be an insufficiently comprehensive document that left numerous gaping loopholes.

The document included among the list of arms sought to be regulated: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. This range of weapons has received criticism from both sides of the advocacy spectrum, for being both too broadly and too narrowly tailored.

The inclusion of small arms and light weapons came under fire by advocacy groups that support the right to bear arms. Speaking to this point, International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) Executive Director Philip Watson explained to RAPSI during the conference, “We are appalled they deemed it appropriate to place civilian firearms used for self-defense in a treaty with tanks, bombs, and attack helicopters. It is dangerous to include civilian self-defense weapons in such an international treaty that could curtail legitimate use or trade of small civilian weapons.  Personal security and the defense of one’s home and family are values shared across international borders, regardless of an individual’s background or nationality.”

The opposite side of the spectrum was comprised of disarmament and human rights advocacy groups who argued that the list of arms and activities covered was too narrow. Toward this end, Amnesty International [AI] noted in a press release toward the end of the conference that, “Major loopholes in the draft text include ammunition not being subject to tight decision-making controls, an array of weapons, munitions and related equipment not being covered, as well as the treaty only applying to the international trade of conventional arms instead of all international transfers including gifts and aid.”

A similarly concerned Oxfam released a statement by head of its arms control unit Anna Macdonald around the same time urging that “[t]here are more holes in this draft treaty than in a leaky bucket and these must be urgently closed if we are going to stop weapons from flowing into the world`s worst conflict zones.”

As it became clear toward the end of the conference that hope was lost, some viewed the stalemate as the fault of the US. In a widely publicized move, 51 US senators pledged to vote against ratification of the treaty if it failed to protect the constitutional right of US citizens to bear arms. As US ratification of an international treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the senate, these numbers were sufficient to ensure against US ratification of the bill.

The pledge came in the form of a letter addressed to the Obama administration. A press release issued shortly thereafter by Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi quoted a portion of the letter that urged the Obama administration to break the conference’s required consensus if doing so was necessary to protect the right of US citizens to bear arms. The relevant passage stated:  “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure – if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference – that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard.”

Later that day, the US State Department (USDOS) issued a statement acknowledging both the failure of the conference to produce tangible results and the refusal of the US to move to accept the treaty in its ultimate form. USDOS spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated, “we do not support a vote in the UNGA on the current text. The illicit trafficking of conventional arms is an important national security concern for the United States. While we sought to conclude this month’s negotiations with a Treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue. The current text reflects considerable positive progress, but it needs further review and refinement.”

Some US-based right-to-bear-arms advocacy groups attributed the stalemate to their own grassroots efforts. The most well-known such group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) took personal credit for the failure of the conference to produce results, stating on its website Friday: “The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations… This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the [conference.]”

The conference’s launch was drenched with optimism. Prior to the start of negotiations, many lauded the potential of the conference to make the world a safer place through the regulation of the international arms trade. Ban expressed optimism in the face of the daunting task that lay ahead, noting, “It is ambitious, but I believe it is achievable.” During his opening statement, Ban urged the necessity of the conference’s success: “Every day, we at the United Nations see the human toll of an absence of regulations or lax controls on the arms trade.  We see it in the suffering of civilian populations trapped by armed conflict or pervasive crime.  We see it in the killing and wounding of civilians — including children, the most vulnerable of all.  We see it in the massive displacement of people within and across borders.  We see it through grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.”

As negotiations fizzled, he lamented, “The Conference’s inability to conclude its work on this much-awaited ATT, despite years of effort of Member States and civil society from many countries, is a setback.”
The Second UN 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 conference currently underway has been scheduled to run from 27 August to 7 September. A list of member nations in attendance has not yet been released, but a UN official speaking to RAPSI Thursday confirmed that at least 75-80% of UN states are represented.

The document at issue is the politically binding “Programme of action to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects,” (POA) which was adopted by consensus in 2001.

From the start, the UN has made clear its intention to refrain during the course of the conference from restricting firearm ownership rights. A UN press statement explained, “The Review Conference only reviews progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action which was adopted in 2001 to combat the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons… It is not about banning firearms or any other type of small arms or prohibiting people from owning legal weapons.”

The release emphasized the conference’s disinterest in imposing lofty regulations, stating: “Each sovereign State determines its own laws and regulations for the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms by its citizens. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over such matters.”

After denying rumors that the conference would essentially serve as a component part of a broader UN conspiracy—in connection with the Arms Trade Treaty—to prohibit civilian gun ownership, the release reiterated the recent failure of the ATT to come into existence: “The Arms Trade Treaty does not yet exist. It was discussed throughout July 2012 and focused on setting common standards for how States could regulate the international trade of all types of conventional arms. No consensus was achieved on a draft Treaty text. “

This conspiracy theory denial points to a critical difference between the conferences and the documents at their core. The ATT sought to regulate the international trade of all types of conventional arms. The POA sought to eliminate the illicit trade of small arms. The goals of the former were extraordinarily lofty; those of the latter, quite narrow.

The POA was born the successful outcome of a conference similar to that which failed to produce the ATT. UN members came together with the goal of combatting, preventing, and eradicating the small arms trade in July 2001, and reached a consensus on how to do so: by targeted, limited means.

Regardless of where one stands on the right to bear arms, it is worth noting the different reactions elicited from the two texts with similar goals but diametrically opposed scopes.

It should be noted that the POA has been criticized by its own implementation support system for lacking key mechanisms to ensure its implementation. It is possible that the inclusion of such mechanisms would have created obstacles to its approval similar to those faced by the ATT.

SAF/IAPCAR DEFEND WOMAN’S RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE AT UNITED NATIONS

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

The Second Amendment Foundation today reminded the United Nations that “if women have the right to be protected against violence, then they have the right to protect themselves against violence.”

So spoke SAF’s Director of Operations Julianne Versnel, whose remarks to the U.N. Programme of Action conference were unlike anything many delegates had ever heard before.

The conference is seen as the first step toward rekindling discussions about an on-going process to continue development of a small arms and light weapons treaty, which earlier this summer collapsed when several nations opposed it.

Noting that she had reviewed what has already been written and said about the violence against women as it relates to the Programme of Action, Versnel emphasized that, “I am struck by what is not said.”

“If there is a basic sanctity of a woman’s person,” she observed, “if there is a right to not be a victim of sexual or personal violence, then that right involves the right to defend one’s self.”

Alan Gottlieb, Laura McDonald, Otis McDonald and Julianne Versnel at the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Chicago, Illinois.

Versnel stressed that any new global gun control initiatives must “do nothing to disarm women who legitimately and rightfully want to defend themselves.”

While international gun prohibitionists have been pushing a civilian disarmament agenda, Versnel’s warnings may open up a new and politically uncomfortable arena. It is impossible to dismiss female victims of violence as “male American gun nuts.”

“The drive for human rights is a force throughout the world,” Versnel stated, “and especially here at the U.N. A woman’s right to be free from violence is a fundamental human right. That fundamental right is to defend one’s self. The report of this conference should state that without reservation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

REVCON 2012 – Prelude To A New Arms Trade Treaty

Monday, August 27th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Ammoland

With the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) currently on the back burner, in just a few days, weapon-prohibitionists will be holding another firearms conference in New York City: the Review Conference 2012 (RevCon 2012).

RevCon 2012 re-visits the UN’s Programme of Action (PoA) to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, adopted in 2001.

While the PoA enumerates many lofty-sounding objectives, to those unfamiliar with the UN’s agenda, to date, with regard to civilian firearm ownership, this might sound like a template for the elimination of human rights abuses. But armed with knowledge of the UN’s past efforts to achieve civilian disarmament, and reading all the provisions contained in the Programme, it is difficult to come away with any impression other than the PoA was really nothing short of a template to accomplish that.

But if the PoA’s proponents said what they really wanted –just like the rest of the weapon-prohibitionists– they likely wouldn’t have gotten to the stage we’re at now: the implementation of a global, legally -binding Arms Trade Treaty!

So they camouflaged their real goals a decade ago, and used the PoA as a guideline.

The goal of this Second Review Conference “[W]ill offer the opportunity to review the progress made in the implementation of the PoA, including the separately agreed International Tracing Instrument (ITI) (2005).”  And the goal of the ITI is the “Undertaking [of] effective measures in marking, record-keeping and tracing [which] is vital for curbing the illicit trade and combating the diversion of small arms to unintended users. Although many weapons are marked when produced and some when imported, international cooperation in marking and tracing of small arms is in its infancy.”

RevCon 2012 will take place at the UN from August 27 to September 7, 2012, and one can find its agenda described at the Reaching Critical Will (RCW) website. RCW describes itself as “a project of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)…. to protest the killing and destruction of the war then raging in Europe. WILPF created Reaching Critical Will in 1999 in order to promote and facilitate engagement of non-governmental actors in UN processes related to disarmament.”

Unlike the Arms Trade Treaty, which will encompass 8 classes of weapons, the PoA is specifically limited to Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). Just as ATT proponents insist that the ATT was not intended to eliminate civilian weapons, PoA proponents (many of whom are members of the same anti-gun groups) also insist that the PoA is not about the elimination of the private ownership of firearms.

And this is how they laid the trap.  Since governments control the definition of what is “lawful,” when the time is ripe, governments can re-define lawful civilian firearm ownership and possession right out of existence.

The weapon-prohibitionists maintain that “Most illicit small arms and light weapons begin as legally manufactured or imported weapons that are subsequently diverted to the illicit realm.” They have no qualms about allowing government to retain strong control over privately-owned weapons. They appear to believe, with utmost confidence, that through their elaborate tracing and tracking schemes, they can locate the points where weapons are diverted into the illicit arms trade, thereby halting further illegal transfers, and punishing violators, as well.

But what their schemes will actually accomplish is decrease licit transfers of arms to civilians, who will then increasingly turn to the black market to obtain what government denies them.

Sadly, many Americans already accept the fact that our government controls just who is allowed to own which weapons, and under what circumstances those weapons can be owned and used. Although not stated outright, it seems apparent to us that PoA restrictions are intended only to reduce the lists –of permissible weapons, of those who can own them, and of how those weapons can be used.

And these lists are rapidly shrinking, day by day.

In a 2001 paper sponsored by Small Arms Survey, “Removing Small Arms From Society,” Sami Faltas, Glenn McDonald & Camilla Waszink confirm the PoA’s goal.

The authors state: “Finally, using a mix of incentives and sanctions and working together with business and civil society, governments must recover stocks of firearms held by the population and dispose of them definitively, preferably through destruction.”

The weapon-prohibitionists have been busy preparing a set of international standards, the International Small Arms Control Standard (ISACS), an early draft of which is currently online. Its update, which has been kept under wraps, is not easily accessible to the public (log-in credentials are required for viewing the document). The update is scheduled to be launched to the public on Wednesday, August 29, 2012.

It is often stated that “actions speak louder than words,” and the weapon-prohibitionists never come up short in this regard. We can best understand the RevCon 2012 advocates’ camouflaged designs to disarm civilians by watching their actions. Although they claim that their intent is to reduce violence and to reduce human rights violations, their acts indicate otherwise.

When voluntary civilian disarmament fails, as it has in the past, forceful disarmament will follow. The weapon-prohibitionists apparently know this, but they don’t seem to care. In an  article entitled “Lessons From the Frontiers: Civilian Disarmament in Kenya and Uganda,” the authors discuss attempted civilian disarmament. And, they acknowledge, “In some cases the use of force was clearly excessive, with grave human rights violations occurring.”

The human rights violations referred to included rape, torture, and murder.

If those who condemn the use of such inhumane methods are willing to see them used to achieve their goal of disarmament at any cost, including the loss of innocent life, we should never believe that their goal is benign.  Nor should we ever accept their pretense of innocence. We must always seek the hidden lie, for it is there just waiting to be found.

With the knowledge that total civilian disarmament–and government monopoly of force–is the ultimate goal, it is imperative that we watch RevCon 2012 with extreme scrutiny and skepticism.

About the authors:

Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice optometry and dentistry, respectively, on Long Island, NY, and have collaborated on firearm politics for the past 20 years. They have also collaborated with David B. Kopel since 2000, and are Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, where Kopel is Research Director. Most recently, Gallant and Eisen have also written with Alan J. Chwick.  Sherry Gallant has been instrumental in the editing of virtually all of the authors’ writings, and is immensely knowledgeable in the area of firearm politics.

Almost all of the co-authored writings of Gallant, Eisen, Kopel and Chwick can be found at http://gallanteisen.incnf.org, which contains more detailed information about their biographies and writing, and contains hyperlinks to many of their articles. Their recent series focusing on the Arms Trade Treaty can be found primarily at http://gwg.incnf.org .

UN Arms Trade Treaty: A threat to the 2nd amendment?

Monday, August 27th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Chron.com

Negotiations at a United Nations conference over a proposed Arms Trade Treaty, which would regulate conventional arms sales across borders, ended in July without a report. The talks will likely resume, however, and many are concerned about the treaty’s implications for the Second Amendment. The concern is justified, given the treaty’s goal is weapons control. Its terms are vague and could be used to launch efforts to attack the constitutional right to bear arms.

Foreign treaties are signed by the president and ratification is approved or rejected by the U.S. Senate, thereby bypassing the House of Representatives. The current administration has stated on more than one occasion it believes Congress is an impediment to its policies; thus, attempting gun control by foreign treaty may be considered the path of least resistance, particularly if the treaty specifics do not come to light prior to approval. Once passed, vague treaty terms could be more restrictively defined.

How did we get here? The United Nations process started in 2001. In 2006, the U.N. General Assembly requested opinions on an arms treaty, and the results were published in a 2007 report by the Secretary-General. This was followed by a 2008 report and the establishment of an open-ended working group. In 2009 the General Assembly resolved to convene a conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012 “to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms.”

The initial U.N. conference on the treaty was held July 2-27, 2012. A Review Conference will be held Aug. 27 to Sept. 7, 2012. The supporting resolutions and documents for these conferences reference a “Programme of Action,” but not the points of action themselves. Thus, the original document is critical, and by referencing only the “Programme of Action” the full implications of the treaty language have not been central to the public debate.

The initial goals of the “Programme of Action” were set out in 2001, and subsequent meetings have been held to propose measures to be taken to trace, monitor and control small arms (see page 7 of the hyperlinked document, which is also page 13 of 29 in the pdf file). Among other things, the Programme of Action resolves to “prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects” by “strengthening or developing agreed norms and measures at the global, national and regional levels … placing particular emphasis on the regions of the world where conflicts come to an end and where serious problems with the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of small arms and light weapons have to be dealt with urgently.”

Potential concerns about the process and the language might include:

  1. References to “regions of the world … [with] serious problems with the excessive and destabilizing accumulation of small arms” and the focus on “porous borders” in more recent U.N. documents, lead many to the conclusion the U.S.-Mexico border is a focus of the treaty. Mexico is part of the leadership of the treaty conference.
  2. The treaty resolution is to control the “illicit” trade. That leaves “illicit” open for interpretation, and it is not clear what party or parties will set the interpretation. If the U.N. passed a resolution that the manufacture or ownership of any type of gun (or ammunition) was illegal, then all small weapons could be “illicit.”
  3. If gun (or ammunition) ownership is illicit, the treaty could conceivably justify an international effort to put in place “adequate laws” in the United States as deemed acceptable to the U.N.
  4. If gun ownership was illicit, the treaty would require criminal penalties.
  5. Similar issues arise with the interpretation of “stockpiling.” Could the term be defined as a single weapon? More than three bullets?
  6. The treaty encourages moratoria on weapons.
  7. Treaty implementation encourages the use of regulations and administrative procedures to accomplish the goal, again bypassing the full Congress.

Experience has taught that an idea or policy can be approved or passed, only to have the idea and concept redefined to implement an entirely different outcome that never would have passed the vote in the first place. This U.N. treaty raises the concern that the U.S. may sign away its sovereignty on the gun ownership issue.

One might wonder what this Arms Trade Treaty would look like when implemented. The answer hinges on the interpretation of specific terms mentioned above, such as “illicit” and “stockpiling,” as well as “adequate laws, regulations and procedures,” “legal” and  “destabilizing accumulation.” For one possible outcome, one needs to look no farther than Venezuela. On June 1, 2012, a new Venezuelan gun control law promoted by the administration of President Hugo Chavez went into effect that makes the sale and manufacture of weapons and ammunition illegal and requires all weapons to be registered. Only the military, police and security personnel are permitted to purchase a firearm or ammunition. It is interesting to note that Venezuela’s close ally, Iran, is on the leadership committee for the Arms Trade Treaty.

With mistrust surrounding the recent Fast and Furious scandal, the federal government’s efforts to provide U.S. citizen gun information to foreign governments through eTrace, and a belief Obama administration officials would like to see greater gun control, it is no wonder there is serious concern about the U.N. Arms Control Treaty. The treaty appears to be yet another tactic “under the radar” aimed at the Second Amendment.

As early as last summer, 13 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the president reflecting this concern. On July 26, 2012, a bipartisan group of 51 U. S. Senators sent another letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening to oppose the treaty if it did not protect America’s constitutional right to bear arms. When the Arms Trade Treaty conference group announced on July 27, 2012, that it had failed to come to an agreement, it cited the changing U.S. position the day before as issue. One could therefore assume the Arms Trade Treaty was a U.S.-led effort that could neither stand without the current administration’s participation, nor without language that might infringe on the American right to bear arms.

Have efforts for gun control slowed?  No. As a separate move toward gun regulation, a Senate amendment was submitted on July 25, 2012, the day before 51 Senators sent a letter to Obama regarding the Arms Trade Treaty. The amendment was submitted for attachment to the Cyber Security Act (S.B. 3414) and would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition. As reported in the Congressional Record for July 25, 2012, the amendment has been tabled for the time being.

What will likely happen in current months? A variety of tactics may be at work. U.N. committee members are discussing efforts to bring the proposed report and treaty before the U.N. General Assembly in September.  Mexican representatives have been quoted as saying there will certainly be a treaty in 2012. Western diplomats believe the negotiations will be revived after the election. The State Department has stated the U.S. would support a second round of negotiations next year. Then there may also be continued efforts to attach amendments to legislation that otherwise is deemed vital to the nation.

Joan Neuhaus Schaan is the fellow in homeland security and terrorism at the Baker Institute, and the coordinator of the Texas Security Forum, and serves on the advisory board of the Transborder International Police Association. She has served as the executive director of the Houston-Harris County Regional Homeland Security Advisory Council and on the board of Crime Stoppers of Houston, Inc.

Global gun control treaty may return in the fall at UN

Friday, August 24th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

by Dave Workman

Senior Editor

Following a stunning last-minute derailment of the United Nations’ highly-touted international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations, global gun control proponents are expected to bring the issue back again in the fall.

That was the forecast from Julianne Versnel with the Second Amendment Foundation and International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR). She was at the UN when the ATT meltdown occurred, as was Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Both were instrumental in creating IAPCAR, which now has member organizations all over the globe.

The treaty talks essentially imploded in the final 24 hours when ATT proponents did not produce a final draft of their proposed treaty until late in the afternoon of the day prior to a scheduled vote. Another problem was that the document was printed only in English, leaving many delegates from non-English speaking nations in the lurch because they had no document to study.

The US delegation and other delegations simply did not have enough time to study the proposal, and there were problems with it even if they had.

The final draft came barely 48 hours after an initial document was circulated that met with tepid reactions from several delegations including North Korea and Iran. In a press release, Gottlieb called the proposed treaty, “a blatant attempt to negate the recent Second Amendment court victories we’ve had in the United States, and to get around Second Amendment protections.” A coalition of global gun control organizations has been pushing for the most extreme language and tenets in the proposed treaty, and now they are apparently back at the drawing board trying to come up with language that will be acceptable. That group includes International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Oxfam International and Control Arms. The latter group was apparently responsible for a handout depicting their vision of the treaty provisions highlighted in Olympics-style rings, timed with the opening of the summer games in London.

Two of those items were “Arms and Bullets” and “Global Standards Over National Views.” The former alluded to privately owned firearms, and the latter was a veiled but direct threat to the Second Amendment, Gottlieb said.

Various gun rights organizations, including CCRKBA and the National Rifle Association, had been lobbying against this treaty for weeks. If the Obama administration signs it, the document must still be ratified by the US Senate, and after intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, that doesn’t seem likely.

Now, with the national elections looming, President Barack Obama may be painting himself into an ever-tightening corner with American gun owners, if the treaty comes up again in October as anticipated.

Did the NRA Kill the Arms Trade Treaty?

Friday, August 24th, 2012

Original Story Via:  The Duck of Minerva

By

UN members last month failed to reach agreement on the Arms Trade Treaty after a month-long conference.  This is the latest setback in a decades old attempt to control the trade in small arms.  A broad network of states, NGOs, and the UN bureaucracy had pushed for the treaty and earlier measures.  In their view, proliferation of guns contributes to hundreds of thousands of casualties per year in conflict zones and to large numbers of shooting deaths in countries at peace.

But the international campaign to control the illicit trade in small arms has long faced skepticism from certain states, most notably the U.S, but also Russia, China,  India, and others.  For an interactive map of state views on the ATT, click here. Since its start in the early 1990s, the campaign has also faced outright opposition from NGOs such as America’s National Rifle Association.  The NRA and other American gun groups have joined with overseas counterparts to promote gun rights and the right to self-defense.  Most notable is the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA) and more recently the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).  The groups help one another in their own countries and work together to lobby states against international gun control.

It is this network, spanning governments and NGOs, that killed the ATT.  The Obama administration administered the coup d’grace, but other American politicians and civil society groups strongly influenced this decision.  Other states cheered them on, if only privately. All of this holds important  lessons for studying international policymaking and transnational advocacy.

The ATT had been billed as an alternative to a prior, failed try at controlling the illicit trade, in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  This began as the Cold War ended and ethnic warfare became the fear du jour of the early ’90s (as terrorism is today), with gun proliferation blamed for much of the bloodshed.  The Bush administration gutted that attempt in 2001, using a UN conference’s consensus rules to allow only the nonbinding Programme of Action on Small Arms (PoA).  The PoA was so weak that a key proponent of small arms control, Human Rights Watch, dubbed it a “program of inaction” and shuttered its campaign.  Nonetheless, this zombie policy—alive on paper but in reality dead—lurched along until 2006, when the U.S. finally killed the PoA completely at another UN confab.

The ATT was supposed to be different, negotiated only by likeminded states and without the consensus rules that allowed key opponents to block an effective PoA.  In the Bush era, this seemed the best that could be achieved, given the close ties between gun groups and the U.S. administration.  But keeping America out of the ATT negotiations would have led to another form of zombieism—a key arms exporter not part of the treaty, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. already has some of the world’s toughest export controls.  Thus when the Obama administration took office and expressed interest in the ATT, members of the ATT coalition opted to allow it in, accepting its demand that consensus rules again be followed and U.S. laws be used as a basis for negotiations.  (At the time, a number of activists raised red flags, warning that it could end with the ATT’s failure, but to no avail.)

From the start, American gun groups decried the ATT because of its supposed threat to American gun rights.  State negotiators did their best to reduce controversial issues.  And by the end of the conference last month, a cascade of some 90 states supported the text.  But opposition remained strong in many states, particularly to the marking of ammunition and to sales of guns to nonstate actors.  In the U.S., opposition was particularly ferocious, as encapsulated in a letter signed by 51 U.S. Senators, including Democrats, expressing “grave concern” about the “dangers” to U.S. sovereignty and individual rights under the Second Amendment.  The Senators, voicing the views of American gun groups, warned that the treaty’s draft text could force the U.S. to monitor and control domestic transfers, to maintain records of imports and shipments, and to increase regulations to prevent transfers to illicit or unintended end users.

Farfetched?  Although the intent of the draft was clearly to control the illicit international trade, its terms, if broadly construed, could be read in these ways.  And there is little doubt that in an issue as hot as guns, American control advocates would have read them in this way, to score points and influence judicial and legislative outcomes.  The real menace to American gun rights is doubtless small, given the power of the Second Amendment and the fact that, even if the U.S. had signed, the 51 Senators opposing the draft, meant that the ATT could not be ratified.  But the vehement opposition is nonetheless explicable as part of the bitter warfare between gun and gun control proponents in the U.S.

Ultimately, in an election year, the Obama administration bowed to these pressures and refused to agree to the final draft of the ATT.  Some gun groups celebrated this “grassroots victory” for the right to self-defense, but others, like a commentator at Ammoland, were more cautious: “We cannot view this as a victory for us because the Treaty has not been abandoned. Nor can we view it as a defeat for its proponents—merely a temporary setback.”

Indeed, it is likely that some form of ATT will be reintroduced at the next UN session, and it is possible that a substantial number of states will agree to controls.   Whatever the precise outlines of the final ATT, there are some broader lessons here:

  • States remain key players in transnational advocacy networks.  Focusing on the NGOs, as much of the academic literature does, is too narrow a perspective.
  • NGOs and civil society networks nonetheless influence states, especially democratic states.  But they probably do so more through everyday lobbying at home, than by efforts in UN hallways or in some kind of transnational normative space.
  • International civil society, just like domestic civil society, is ideologically diverse and conflictive.  Conservative groups are powerful there, as activists in the trenches well know.  It is by no means the exclusive preserve of progressive groups, notwithstanding scholars’ focus on them.
  • As a result, zombie policy and failed policy are far more common than policy successes—although, as the gun control case shows, one network’s failure is usually another’s triumph.  As scholars, we can learn a great deal by dissecting the corpses and living-dead that strew policy battlefields.  By contrast, to focus only on the relatively few policies that stagger, battered and bruised, off the field (typically to face further attacks in ongoing policy wars) is misleading.

Finally, the requisite plug:  For more on battles over transnational gun control—as well as lots more on conservative transnationalism, policy conflict, and zombie policy—see my new book, The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics.

 

Governments not people craft UN Arms Trade Treaty

Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

By Joseph P. Tartaro

Executive Editor

Perhaps the United Nations should have a motto that reflects its focus on “government stability” and the balance of power between the people of the world and their respective governments.

I’d suggest the UN consider clearly stating, “The most despicable government we’ve ever known was pretty good.” If you need evidence beyond the fact that the lambs have been feeding at the same trough as the crocodiles all of these years, just look what the UN did as the much anticipated and dreaded conference on a binding Arms Trade Treat (ATT) began in July.

With the shadow of Syrian repression cast across most news media in the world and clouding the ATT talks, the UN turned to Iran to help negotiate a global arms treaty in a move that is drawing scorn and ridicule around the globe. But apparently not among the striped-pants diplomats meeting in New York City.

The appointment was made by members of the UN Conference on the ATT shortly after the month-long conference began in July. The committee to which Iran was appointed is tasked with coming up with a treaty regulating the international trade of conventional small arms and, proponents hope, ammunition.

“Right after a UN Security Council report found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is now murdering thousands of its own people, it defies logic, morality, and common sense for the UN to now elect this same regime to a global post in the regulation of arms transfers,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group based in Geneva.

“This is like choosing Bernie Madoff to police fraud on the stock market.

And the UN’s scandalous choice of Iran is exactly why we fear that Syria’s declared bid for a UN Human Rights Council seat is not impossible.” The 15-nation committee is led by Argentina, which serves as president, and includes the US, Iran, China, and Russia as nations that serve as vice presidents.

UN Watch called on UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the decision to name Iran to the committee.

“He should remind the conference that the Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its prohibited nuclear program, and that Iran continues to defy the international community through illegal arms shipments to the murderous Assad regime,” Neuer said.

US officials played down the significance of the appointment.

“Obviously we oppose (Iran’s appointment), but it’s a symbolic position with little impact on a month-long negotiation that must be decided by consensus,” one senior State Department official told Fox News.

“It will ultimately face the approval of the United States regardless of which country holds one of 14 powerless vice president positions. At that point, we will be looking for an arms trade treaty that makes the legitimate global weapons trade safer by bringing the rest of the world’s arms trade regulations up to the high US standard.” However, two weeks into the deliberations on the ATT, there seems to be a wide divergence of position by different governments. There is no guarantee the negotiations now in progress will produce a treaty, let alone a good one. In February, preparatory talks on the ground rules for this month’s talks nearly collapsed due to procedural wrangling and other disagreements.

In the end, the US and other countries succeeded in ensuring the treaty must be approved unanimously, so any one country can effectively veto a deal.

In spite of Iran and Syria, there are still deep divisions on key issues to be tackled in the treaty negotiations, such as whether human rights should be a mandatory criterion for determining whether governments should permit weapons exports to specific countries.

China wants to exempt small arms, while several Middle East states oppose making compliance with human rights norms a mandatory criterion for allowing arms deliveries. Meanwhile, Canada wants to exclude civilian small arms and ammunition altogether.

Britain has joined France, Germany and Sweden in calling for a solid, effective and legally binding treaty.

According to Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, a treaty would damage US foreign policy and prevent it helping friends such as Taiwan. But he noted the treaty was not yet a done deal.

“Diplomats will natter away about it all month over cappuccinos in Turtle Bay,” he wrote. “But the White House isn’t doing the country any favors by playing footsie with a UN effort to take aim at our liberties and disarm our foreign policy.” Meanwhile, many organizations opposed to the treaty have been allowed to speak at the UN, and more than 130 congressmen, led by Rep.

Mike Kelly (R-PA), signed a letter sent to President Barack Obama in early July expressing their opposition to a UN arms trade treaty if it violates US gun owner rights and sovereignty.

The letter includes specific demands— that the treaty leave out small arms and ammunition and recognize an individual’s right to self-defense.

The Obama administration has claimed that there are safeguards to their treaty approach, but the safeguard is insufficient for opponents of the US participation, not least because UN talks invariably involve compromise.

“The administration swears they have a whole bunch of red lines, and they will block consensus if anyone crosses them,” said a government relations consultant as senior associate with the Commonwealth Consulting Corporation.

“But the dynamics of international negotiations are that once you get 90% of what you seek, you say, ‘Maybe there is a way we can finesse the final 10%.’ ” A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to US arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province.

This would be highly problematic for the US at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup.

Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against US arms transfers to the Israeli government—as they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to condemn Israel.

US gun lobby concern focus on the emphasis the treaty places on governmental— as opposed to individual— rights to guns, according to Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.

“They’re trying to impose a UN policy that gives guns to the governments— but the UN doesn’t in turn make moral judgments as to whether these governments are good or bad,” he said.

“If you’re the government, you get the guns, if you’re a civilian, you don’t.

This will just end up helping evil governments and tyrants.”

 

Pakistan – Extortion, killings: Businessmen may take up arms for their defence

Monday, August 6th, 2012

Original Story Via:  The Express Tribune

KARACHI: Office-bearers of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) on Thursday said they would take up weapons to defend themselves if law enforcement agencies failed to end extortion, targeted killings and kidnappings for ransom.

Addressing the business community and media in the presence of Sindh Inspector General of Police Fayyaz Ahmed Leghari at KCCI, former KCCI president Siraj Kassam Teli said he would quit chamber politics for good if the poor law and order situation persisted after Eid.

“Enough is enough. We’ve lost patience with the government as well as the Sindh police,” said Teli, who is also the chairman of the Businessmen Group, whose favoured candidates have won KCCI elections unopposed for many years. KCCI is the largest chamber of commerce and industry in Pakistan with over 18,000 members.

Taking a cue perhaps from the influential gun lobby of the United States, Teli said he was going to ask every businessman to carry arms and be responsible for his own security. “I’m in favour of a free-for-all. A criminal wouldn’t have the courage to pull a gun in a crowded bazaar if no gun rules existed.”

Calling Interior Minister Rehman Malik a “liar,” Teli said the federal and provincial governments, along with the Sindh police, had shown little willingness to curb rising incidents of extortion so far.

Expressing his dismay over the frequent use of unregistered mobile phone SIMs to send death threats to the business community, he accused the federal government of criminal negligence and deliberate ineffectiveness.

Responding to the comments of Teli, Sindh IGP Leghari said the biggest challenge facing the provincial police was extortion. Kidnappings for ransom and street crimes are the next priorities of the police department, he said.

“I’ve proposed that neighbourhood committees should be formed in all markets where members of traders’ associations, in cooperation with police personnel, take care of law and order,” Leghari said.


India – Delhi women gun for arms licences

Monday, August 6th, 2012

Original Story Via:  The Times of India

NEW DELHI: It could be a new measure of women’s emancipation or just a passing fad, but Delhi Police has been stumped by the huge number of working women seeking gun licences. The trend is partly a response to the city’s lawlessness but may also reflect the growing need of women to be in control, claim senior officers.

In the past two years, Delhi cops have received over 900 applications for guns from women. While year 2010 saw around 320 applications, the figure had grown to around 500 in 2011. But it’s not only the numbers that’s a break from the past. There’s a change as well in the reasons cited by women for bearing arms.

“Women earlier mostly cited the inheritance clause – saying their fathers or husbands had a licence which they want to continue holding. Many women applying under this clause were proxies for men who themselves would not have got a licence. But of late women are citing ‘self-defense’ to apply for a licence,” said an officer in the licencing department.

In general, 20-22% of all applicants are now women. The officer said 27 licences were issued to women in 2010. Of these, 17 were those who had applied under the inheritance clause. In 2011, 33 women were granted gun licences, 12 of whom had cited self-defense as a reason.

Till July this year, five women have been granted licences on the basis of personal threats and six on the inheritance clause. In 2010 and 2011, over 600 rejected applications were rejected as no “personal safety threat was assessed”.

Rajya Sabha MP Renuka Chaudhry, herself a gun licence holder, was recently quoted as saying that women need guns more than men “who flaunt the weapons at weddings”.

Mridula Nandy, who unsuccessfully attempted to get a license last year, expresses a similar view. “They kept on asking what do I have to fear. Well, I stay in a place where I am taunted on the roads. At night, I feel unsafe. I will not necessarily fire at someone but a gun boosts confidence,” she said.

Interestingly, even as Indian shooters are doing reasonably well at the Olympic Games bagging silver and a bronze, some women are also applying for gun licences to pursue sport. While two women were granted license under the sports quota, the number doubled in 2011. This year, three women have already been granted licences for pursuing shooting.

In general, police are accused of being too strict while granting women licenses, with the age old inheritance clause still being is the surest way of acquiring a licence. Some allege “a recommendation from a higher up” is crucial in securing a licence.

Cops deny the charges, claiming the criteria for both sexes remain the same. “We grant licenses on three accounts. We check whether the woman has to travel alone at night, whether she is being stalked or harassed or whether she visits a crime-prone area,” said a senior police officer.

He added, “India cannot be seen as a state that promotes guns, unlike some western nations. We will ask everyone to go through the necessary checks and balances.”

UN ATT: Anti-gunners not finished with push for global gun control

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Original Story Via:  Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

Despite Friday’s breakdown on the global Arms Trade Treaty, international gun control proponents are determined to push their agenda, according to a report carried in the Saturday issue of the Seattle P-I.com.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, watched it all unfold at the United Nations, tipping this column early in the day that the United States would not be signing on, as American anti-gunners had hoped. He told Examiner via e-mail and telephone that the ATT’s momentum hit a massive speed bump because the final draft of the treaty was not produced until late in the day.

Anti-gunners are blaming the National Rifle Association for riling up its members, but that’s hardly the entire story. It’s just that the NRA is an easy target. The NRA did a remarkably effective job alerting its members, and NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre left no doubt when he spoke at the U.N. that his organization would fight this treaty with every available resource.

Amnesty International’s Suzanne Trimel, quoted by the Huffington Post, accused the NRA of “spreading lies” about the treaty.

“Basically,” Trimel reportedly stated, “what they’re saying is that the arms trade treaty will have some impact on domestic, Second Amendment gun rights. And that is just false, completely false.”

Gottlieb’s CCRKBA also mounted a massive grassroots effort to thwart the treaty, and gun owners responded by calling Capitol Hill. This resulted in a groundswell of gun owner fury over a document that was far too much in flux. One wonders what Trimel might say about that organization.

And in the background, domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers were none-too-thrilled with the proposed treaty, either because it could have had a severe impact on their international business. Likewise, European gun makers were not happy because they sell a lot of firearms here in the United States and elsewhere.

This column’s revelation that the treaty would create a new gun control “secretariat” — translation: a new international bureaucracy — raised even more alarms. That detail was buried several pages back in the treaty draft, and as the saying goes, the Devil is in the details.

The meetings actually went on for about three weeks with little or no movement until the past few days. Gottlieb, who was at the U.N. with his wife, Julianne Versnel, both told Examiner that many people were frustrated at the process. Because the final treaty draft was not delivered until late Thursday afternoon, people simply did not have the opportunity to study it. Versnel noted that other countries — China and Russia most notably — threw up roadblocks as well.

Global gun control proponents are determined to bring this treaty proposal back to the table in September. They are an unhappy lot, so much so that Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA, felt compelled to say this:

“This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line. It’s a staggering abdication of leadership by the world’s largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough.”—Suzanne Nossel, quoted by USAToday.

The irony of this statement is perhaps most stunning to American gun owners, who see the Obama administration as the archenemy of gun rights. It was, after all, President Obama who appointed two liberal anti-gunners to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was Mr. Obama who provided last-minute cover to embattled Attorney General Eric Holder in his effort to withhold documents from the Fast and Furious investigation. It was the president who said in 2009 that he supported the ATT and indicated he would sign it.

Now the president is taking a verbal beating from those with whom he might be most closely allied, both politically and philosophically.

Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton’s State Department is quoted by the Associated Press story that appears in the Seattle P-I.com. She reportedly said the U.S. — meaning the Obama administration — wants another round of negotiations next year, as in “after the November election.”

Gun owners are coming to full realization just how important the election is, not only on domestic issues but also on an international scale. Because this treaty still has a genuine possibility of resurrection, it remains a threat and in the collective mind of the firearms community the most effective way to stop it is to replace the administration that wants to sign it.

NFA Canada shares thoughts on the UN ATT

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Original Story Via:  National Firearms Association (Canada)

UN Arms Trade Treaty Talks Close Without Consensus

The United Nations talks on an Arms Trade Treaty ended today without consensus on any of the latest proposed treaty drafts.  The UN’s self-imposed deadline of July 27 saw considerable disagreement remaining on the part of many nations as to the content and goals of various draft treaty language.

Speaking from Orangeville, Ontario NFA President Sheldon Clare stated that, “While many may view this as a relief, it is important to realize that there is still significant pressure from many anti-gun NGOs and governments to achieve such a treaty.  In short, the international and domestic firearms communities must continue to be informed about what happens next as part of the larger UN programs of disarmament and any potential effect on civilians who own firearms.”

Clare praised the Canadian delegation, “Canada’s National Firearms Association wishes to acknowledge the professionalism and patience of the Canadian government’s delegation during what were clearly very difficult negotiations to achieve a treaty that would impose “no new burdens” on Canadians.”   He continued, “While the NFA has stronger views on the talks than some of those of the government, I believe that Canadians were well served by our national representatives.  In particular, the Canadian delegation was vocal in supporting the NFA’s right to have our voice heard at the talks.”

Mr. Clare continued, “The key question for Canadians is what will happen next.  Canada’s National Firearms Association will be watching the UN’s next moves and it is important that all firearms owners stay tuned for new developments.  One thing is clear, vigilance is important to ensure that we are able to fully protect all aspects of our rights and freedoms.”

In addition to its participation at the UN with the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, Canada’s National Firearms Association is a founding member of The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) which includes many national and international organizations promoting civilian ownership of firearms. At over 62,000 members, Canada’s National Firearms Association is this country’s largest advocacy organization promoting the rights and freedoms of all responsible firearm owners and users.

For more information contact:

Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682 Blair@nfa.ca

Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841 Sheldon@nfa.ca

Canada’s NFA toll-free number – 1-877-818-0393

NFA Website: www.nfa.ca

BREAKING NEWS: CCRKBA CREDITS GRASSROOTS FOR U.S. DECISION TO NOT SIGN ARMS TREATY

Friday, July 27th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today applauds the decision by the United States to not sign the proposed International Arms Trade Treaty, and CCRKBA credits grassroots action for the gun rights victory.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who is at the United Nations in New York, said the announcement came Friday morning after a week of intense negotiations.

“I think the grassroots surge by American gun owners against this treaty convinced our government to not sign this document,” Gottlieb said. “The proposed treaty, as written, poses serious problems for our gun rights, and the sovereignty of our Second Amendment.”

CCRKBA has been active in raising public awareness about the proposed treaty, and Gottlieb said he is proud of members and supporters who made “stepped up to the plate” and contacted their U.S. senators.

“This is freedom in action,” Gottlieb stated. “We are gratified that so many did so much to protect their Second Amendment rights from an international gun rights grab.

HARD COPY: UN Arms Trade Treaty Final Draft

Thursday, July 26th, 2012

UN Arms Trade Treaty Final Text

 

The draft of the Arms Trade Treaty

 

 

Submitted by the President of the Conference

 

 

Preamble

 

The States Parties to this Treaty,

 

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

 

Recalling that the Charter of the United Nations promotes the establishment and maintenance of international

peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;

 

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market and for unauthorized end use;

 

Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;

 

Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;

 

Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United

Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing;

 

Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the

General Assembly;

 

Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;

 

Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;

 

Recognizing also the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;

 

Bearing in mind that women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;

 

Emphasizing that nothing in this Treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional and more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;

 

Taking note of the legitimate trade and use of certain conventional arms, inter alia, for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities and lawful ownership where such ownership and use are permitted and protected by law;

 

Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the object and purpose of this Treaty; and

 

Acknowledging that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in materiel, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes.

 

Principles

 

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, in promoting the object and purpose of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

 

1.  The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence;

 

2.  The settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

 

3.  To refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the Un ited Nations;

 

4.  Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State;

 

5.  The duty to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to respect and ensure human rights;

 

6.  The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfers of conventional arms, as well as the primary responsibility of all States in establishing and implementing their respective nation al export control systems;

 

7.  States Parties should respect the legitimate interests of States to acquire conventional weapons for legitimate self-defence and peacekeeping operations and to produce, export, import and transfer conventional arms; and

 

8.  The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non – discriminatory manner.

 

Have agreed as follows:

 

Article 1

Goals and Objectives

 

The goals and objectives of the Treaty are:

 

a.    For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms; and

 

b.    To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use;

 

in order to:

 

c.     contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

 

 

d.    Prevent the international trade in conventional arms from contributing to human suffering; and

 

e.     Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties.

 

 

Article 2

Scope

 

A.   Covered Items

 

1.     This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories at a minimum:

 

a.    Battle Tanks;

b.   Armoured combat vehicles;

c.     Large-calibre Artillery systems;

d.   Combat aircraft;

e.     Attack helicopters;

f.     Warships;

g.   Missiles and missile launchers; and h.   Small Arms and Light Weapons

 

2.    Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within paragraph 1 of this article, as defined on a national basis and, at a minimum, based on relevant United Nations instruments. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

 

B.         Covered Activities

 

3.    This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms set out in articles 5, 6, 7,

8 and 9, hereafter referred to as “transfer,” for the conventional arms covered under the scope of this Treaty.

 

4.    This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided the conventional arms remain under the State Party’s ownership.

 

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

 

 

1.    A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms if the transfer would violate its obligations under measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.

 

2.     A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the  international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

 

 

3.     A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

 

Article 4

National Assessment

 

1.    In considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, each State Party shall assess whether the proposed export would contribute to or undermine peace and security.

 

2.    Prior to authorization and pursuant to its national control system, the State Party shall assess whether the proposed export of conventional arms could:

 

a.    be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law;

 

b.   be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international human rights law; or

 

c.     be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism to which the transferring State is a Party.

 

3.    In making the assessment, the exporting State Party shall apply the criteria set out in paragraph 2 of this article consistently, and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

 

4.    In assessing the criteria set out in paragraph 2 of this article, the exporting State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures, including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programmes by the exporting and importing States.

 

5.                       If, after conducting the assessment called for in paragraph 1 and 2 of this article, and after considering the mitigation measures provided for in paragraph 4 of this article, the State Party finds that there is an overriding risk of any of the consequences under paragraph 2 of this article, the State Party shall not authorize the export.

 

6.                       Each State Party, when considering a proposed export of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the arms:

 

a.    being diverted to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use;

 

b.       being used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;

 

c.       being used for transnational organized crime;

 

d.       becoming subject to corrupt practices; or

 

e.       adversely impacting the development of the importing State.

 

Article 5

General Implementation

 

1.    Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non -discriminatory manner, in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty.

 

2.    The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice obligations undertaken with regard to other instruments. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defence cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

 

3.    Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the international transfer of conventional arms.

 

4.    Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters

related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the secretariat, established under article 12, of its national point(s) of contact and keep the information updated.

 

5.    States Parties involved in an international transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with this

Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use.

 

6.    If a diversion is detected, the State or States Parties that made the detection may notify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, to the extent permitted in their national laws, in particular those States Parties that are involved in the transfer or may be affected, without delay.

 

Article 6

Export

 

1.    Each exporting State Party shall conduct national assessments, as detailed in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of article

4 and taking into account the considerations as detailed in paragraph 6 of article 4, whether to authorize the export of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty under its jurisdiction. Each State Party shall apply articles 3 and 4, taking into account all relevant information.

 

2.    Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate information about the export in question shall, upon request, be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, in accordance with national laws.

 

3.    If, after an authorization has been granted, a State Party becomes aware of new relevant information that causes it to reassess that there is an overriding risk of any of the consequences of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of article 4, the State Party may suspend or revoke the authorization.

 

4.    Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition for conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty, and shall apply article 3, and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 o f article 4 prior to authorizing any export of ammunition.

 

5.    Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components, to the extent necessary, for the conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty, and apply article 3 and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of article 4 prior to authorizing any export of those parts and components.

 

 

Article 7

Import

 

1.    Each importing State Party shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, in accordance with its national laws, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State Party in its national assessment.

 

2.    Each importing State Party shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them to regulate, where necessary, imports of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. Each importing State Party shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use.

 

3.    Each importing State Party may request information from the exporting State Party concerning any pending authorizations where the importing State Party is the country of final destination.

 

Article 8

Brokering

 

Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within its national laws, to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. Such controls may require brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering transactions.

 

Article 9

Transit and Transshipment

 

1.    Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to regulate, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through its territory.

 

2.    Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of diversion.

 

Article 10

Reporting and Record-Keeping

 

1.    Each State Party shall maintain national records, in accordance with its national laws and regulations, of the export authorizations or actual exports of the conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty and, where feasible, details of those conventional arms transferred to their territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or transship territory under its jurisdiction.

 

2.    Such records may contain, inter alia, quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty, conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and transshipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or longer if required by other international obligations applicable to the State Party.

 

3.    Each State Party may report to the secretariat, when appropriate, any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use.

 

 

4.    Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to the secretariat of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, including national laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report on

any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be made available and distributed to States Parties by the secretariat.

 

5.    Each State Party shall submit annually to the secretariat by 1 July a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. Reports shall be made available and distributed to States Parties by the secretariat. The report submitted to the secretariat may contain the same information submitted by the State Party to relevant United Nations frameworks, including the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Reports may exclude commercially sensitive or national security information

 

 

Article 11

Enforcement

 

Each State Party shall adopt appropriate national measures and policies as may be necessary to enforce national laws and regulations and implement the provisions of this Treaty.

 

Article 12

Secretariat

 

1.    This Treaty hereby establishes a secretariat to assist States Parties in the effective implementation of this Treaty.

 

2.    The secretariat shall be adequately staffed. Staff shall have the necessary expertise to ensure the secretariat can effectively undertake the responsibilities described in paragraph 3 of this article.

 

3.    The secretariat shall be responsible to States Parties. Within a minimized structure, the secretariat shall undertake the following responsibilities:

 

a.    Receive, make available and distribute the reports as mandated in this Treaty;

 

b.    Maintain and distribute regularly to States Parties the list of national points of contact;

 

c.     Facilitate the matching of offers of and requests for assistance for Treat y implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;

 

d.    Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary services for meetings under this Treaty; and

 

e.     Perform other duties as mandated by this Treaty.

 

 

Article 13

International Cooperation

 

1.    States Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty, consistent with their respective security interests and national laws.

 

2.    Each State Party is encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with its respective security interests and national legal system.

 

3.    Each State Party is encouraged to consult on matters of mutual interest and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty.

 

4.    Each State Party may cooperate, as appropriate, in order to enforce the provisions of this Treat y, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter, prevent and combat diversion to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use, in accordance with national laws. States Parties may also exchange experience and information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to assist national implementation.

 

Article 14

International Assistance

 

1.    In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek, inter alia, legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Each State Party in a position to do so shall, upon request, provide such assistance.

 

2.    Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations, international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.

 

3.    States Parties may also contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Par ties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty. The voluntary trust fund shall be administered by the secretariat under the supervision of States Parties.

 

 

Article 15

Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

 

1.    This Treaty shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and shall remain open for signature until its entry into force.

 

2.    This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by each signatory State.

 

3.    This Treaty shall be open for accession by any State that has not signed the Treaty.

 

4.    The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the depositary.

 

Article 16

Entry into Force

 

1.    This Treaty shall enter into force ninety days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the depositary.

 

2.    For any State that deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession subsequent to the entry into force of this Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force for that State ninety days following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

 

 

Article 17

Provisional application

 

Any State may at the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that it will apply provisionally articles 3 and 4 of this Treaty pending its entry into force for that State.

 

Article 18

Duration and Withdrawal

 

1.    This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

 

2.    Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty.

It shall give notice of such withdrawal to the depositary, which shall notify all other States Parties. The instrument of withdrawal shall include an explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal. The

instrument of withdrawal shall take effect ninety days after the receipt of the instrument of withdrawal by the depositary, unless the instrument of withdrawal specifies a later date.

 

3.    A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations that may have accrued.

 

Article 19

Reservations

 

1.    Each State Party may formulate reservations, u nless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

 

2.    Reservations may be withdrawn at any time.

 

Article 20

Amendments

 

1.    At any time after the entry into force of this Treaty, a State Party may propose an amendment to this

Treaty.

 

2.    An y proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the secretariat, which shall then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before the next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the secretariat that they support further consideration of the proposal, no later than

120 days after its circulation by the secretariat.

 

3.    An y amendment to this Treaty shallbe adopted by consensus of those States Parties present at the Conference of States Parties. The depositary shall communicate any adopted amendment to all States Parties.

 

4.    A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article shal l enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty, upon deposit with the depositary of the instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties at the time of the adoption of the amendment. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

 

 

Article 21

Conference of States Parties

 

1.    A Conference of States Parties shall be convened no later than one year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The  Conference of  States  Parties shall  adopt  rules  of  procedure and  rules  governing its activities,  including  frequency  of  meetings  and  rules  concerning  payment  of  expenses  incurred  in carrying out those activities.

 

2.      The Conference of States Parties shall:

 

a.    Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation and operation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality;

 

b.    Consider amendments to this Treaty;

 

c.     Consider and decide the tasks and budget of the secretariat;

 

 

d.    Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty; and

 

e.     Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

 

3.  If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of States Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

 

Article 22

Dispute Settlement

 

1. States Parties shall consult and cooperate to settle any dispute that may arise between them with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.

 

2. States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this

Treaty through negotiations, mediation, conciliation or other peaceful means of the Party’s mutual choice.

 

3. States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

 

Article 23

Relations with States not party to this Treaty

 

States Parties shall apply articles 3 and 4 to all exports of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to

States not party to this Treaty.

 

Article 24

Relationship with other instruments

 

States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements in relation to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations und er this Treaty and do not undermine the object and purpose of this Treaty.

 

Article 25

Authentic Texts and Depositary

 

 

The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

International gun banners pulling out all stops at UN

Thursday, July 26th, 2012

Original Story Via: TheGunMag.comUN Olympics Gun Control Flyer

By Dave Workman

Senior Editor

The gloves have come off at the United Nations as negotiations over the proposed global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are moving toward a climax, and two leading gun rights advocates on the scene are convinced treaty proponents want to include small arms and ammunition in the document, and slip around the Second Amendment.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, told TGM that, “Some movement in our direction is anticipated, but it will not be enough to make a difference. These would be minor modifications to placate us, but they will not be enough to address the concerns of American gun owners.”

“This is a blatant attempt to negate the recent Second Amendment court victories we’ve had in the United States, and to get around Second Amendment protections,” he asserted.

His wife, Julianne Versnel, said the ATT “is, in essence, an attempt by the rest of the world to impose their view of civilian firearms ownership on us, and negate the Second Amendment.”

They are at the UN representing the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation and the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR). Both helped create IAPCAR, which now has member organizations around the world.

A coalition of global gun control organizations is pushing for the most extreme language and tenets in the treaty, which is supposed to be signed this week. That group includes International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and Oxfam International and Control Arms. The latter group is apparently responsible for a handout depicting their vision of the treaty provisions highlighted in Olympics-style rings.

Ominously, two of those items are “Arms and Bullets” and “Global Standards Over National Views.” The former alludes to privately owned firearms, and the latter is a veiled but direct threat to the Second Amendment, Gottlieb said.

Various gun rights organizations have been lobbying against this treaty for weeks. If the Obama administration signs it, the document must still be ratified by the U.S. Senate, and after intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, that doesn’t seem likely.

But with less than four months to go before the national elections, Barack Obama is painting himself into an ever-tightening corner with American gun owners. That represents a significant and influential voting bloc, and a global gun control treaty could easily push many undecided voters into the Romney camp.

Int’l gun control lobby sets sights on ammo, 2A at United Nations

Thursday, July 26th, 2012

Original Story Via: Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

UN Olympics Gun Control Flyer

UN Olympics Gun Control Flyer

The gloves are definitely off at the United Nations as negotiations continue over the proposed global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), where Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel are raising alarms about a handout distributed Thursday morning by Control Arms, one of the gun control groups pressing for the most extreme provisions.

They say global gun control proponents are directly targeting small arms and ammunition – including civilian-owned rifles, shotguns and handguns – and the Second Amendment. With a layout deliberately designed to mimic the Olympic rings, the handout specifies “Arms and Bullets” and “Global Standards Over National Views.”

The latter, they suggest, is a thinly-veiled reference to world gun control regardless of what the U.S. Constitution might say.

Gottlieb and Versnel are in New York representing the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation and the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

Versnel supplied Examiner with the image above that makes it clear the gun ban crowd – a coalition which includes the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and Oxfam International – are after small arms and ammunition.

In a telephone interview, Versnel made it clear what that means.

“The ATT is, in essence, an attempt by the rest of the world to impose their view of civilian firearms ownership on us, and negate the Second Amendment,” she said.

Negotiators recessed Thursday morning but were to resume in the afternoon. Gottlieb said there are “rumors” that a slightly revised document, discussed by this column yesterday and posted on the IAPCAR website, might be introduced.

“Some movement in our direction is anticipated,” he said, “but it will not be enough to make a difference. These would be minor modifications to placate us, but they will not be enough to address the concerns of American gun owners.”

Gottlieb’s bottom line: “This is a blatant attempt to negate the recent Second Amendment court victories we’ve had in the United States, and to get around Second Amendment protections.”

Various gun rights organizations have been lobbying against this treaty for weeks. If the Obama administration signs it, the document must still be ratified by the U.S. Senate, and after intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, that doesn’t seem likely.

But with less than four months to go before the national elections, Barack Obama is painting himself into an ever-tightening corner with gun owners. As this column noted earlier, he is “out of the closet” as a gun control proponent, even hinting at renewed focus on so-called “assault weapons.”

Unfortunately for gun prohibitionists, the proverbial horse has left the barn on that subject. With millions of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns now in circulation, banning them is out of the question unless the president thinks he can charm gun owners into surrendering them.

In that, the president and the United Nations are in the same leaky boat, with a gun rights tidal wave coming right at them.

NFA Warns of Problems With UN Arms Trade Treaty

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

NFA Warns of problems with UN Arms Trade Treaty

25 July 2012

A near final draft and the closing days of the UN Arms Trade Treaty talks could spell trouble for Canadian interests.  There is tremendous pressure to conclude a deal by July 27 and if the latest draft is any indication, the deal will not be a good one for Canadians.

“The draft treaty still affects civilian ownership of firearms and could cause trouble for Canadians travelling with firearms,” according to Sheldon Clare, President of Canada’s National Firearms Association who was present for part of the talks. “Even more significantly though, are clauses which would establish an expensive and intrusive Implementation Support Unit, a body which would be engaged in keeping firearms trade records.  The ISU would be a likely conduit for providing money to unscrupulous regimes from UN coffers partially funded by Canadian taxpayers.  That is certainly not something that Canadians want or need.”

Clare continued, “One of the most potentially dangerous clauses is the proposed amending formula which under Article 20 introduces a two-thirds majority requirement to amend the ATT.  Such a clause is a direct threat to national sovereignty in that it removes the traditional need for consensus in UN decision making.  It could easily lead to despots and dictators making amendments that would be binding on Europe and North America.  When combined with Article 23 which would mean that even countries that don’t sign it are subject to it, we have a clear step towards a dangerous system of world governance that would harm the interests of Canada and individual Canadians.“

“In addition, there are aspects of the draft treaty that could prevent Canada from providing aid to its needy allies, especially if such aid conflicted with the aims of countries opposed to Canadian values.  The recent draft of the Arms Trade Treaty is bad for Canada and Canadians, and our government should not sign it,” stated Mr. Clare.  “While governments need to act against terrorism, perhaps better ways to deal with unrest would be to address the economic situations, political differences, and human rights issues that contribute to people agitating for change.”

“A global ATT would only be in the interests of those who would seek economic advantage by limiting market opportunity and of regimes who would use such a treaty to disarm their citizens in order to rule through fear.”

In addition to its participation at the UN with the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, Canada’s National Firearms Association is a founding member of The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) which includes many national and international organizations promoting civilian ownership of firearms.  At over 62,000 members, Canada’s National Firearms Association is this country’s largest advocacy organization promoting the rights and freedoms of all responsible firearm owners and users.

For more information contact:

Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682 Blair@nfa.ca

Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841 Sheldon@nfa.ca

Canada’s NFA toll-free number – 1-877-818-0393

NFA Website: www.nfa.ca

Examiner exclusive: UN releases proposed Arms Trade Treaty text

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

The proposed United Nations international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is out, and it is already running into trouble as many of the tenets are apparently contrary to United States law, to say nothing of the collision they might have with the Second Amendment.

Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law.

However, Versnel-Gottlieb notes that the proposed treaty is still getting support from the United Kingdom and the French delegation let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned “weapons.” Gun rights activists will quickly note that this has not worked too well for the British.

The entire document has been posted on the website of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), an organization that Versnel-Gottlieb and her husband, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and founder of SAF, were instrumental in creating.

The important section of this document is the Preamble, according to Alan Gottlieb, who leaves for New York Wednesday in order to be on hand during the anticipated final negotiations later this week. This is what it says:

The States Parties to this Treaty:
1. Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
3. Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
4. Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
5. Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
6. Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
7. Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
8. Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
9. Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
10. Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
11. Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
12. Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
13. Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
15. Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and
16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not
hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

But as Gottlieb puts it, the Devil is always in the details. It is still not clear whether ammunition will be targeted by this proposed agreement, and that is an important consideration.

ATT proponents were hoping to have this treaty signed and in the bag by this Friday, but there is a possibility that may not happen if enough concerns are raised.

BREAKING NEWS: UN Arms Trade Treaty – Full Proposed Document

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

PREAMBLE             

The States Parties to this Treaty.

  1. Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
  2. Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
  3. Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
  4. Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
  5. Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
  6. Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
  7. Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
  8. Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
  9. Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
  10. Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
  11. Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
  12. Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
  13. Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
  14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
  15. Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not

hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology

for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

  1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

 

Article 1

Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market r to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

–          For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

–          To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

–          Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

–          Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

–           Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

 

Article 2

–          A. Covered Items

–          1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

–          a. Battle Tanks

–          b. Armored combat vehicles

–          c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

–          d. Combat aircraft

–          e. Attack helicopters

–          f. Warships

–          g. Missiles and missile launchers

–          h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

–          2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

–          3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

–          4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

–          B. Covered Activities

–          1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

–          2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

 

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

  1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
  2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.
  3. A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

 

Article 4

National Assessment

  1. Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
  2. Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
    1. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
    2. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
    3. Contribute to peace and security;
    4. Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
  3. In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

 

Article 5

Additional Obligations

  1. Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
  2. being diverted to the illicit market;
  3. be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
  4. become subject to corrupt practices; or
  5. adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

 

Article 6

General Implementation

  1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;
  2. The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.
  3. Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;
  4. Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.
  5. State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users.  All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.
  6. . If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.
  7.  Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

 

Article 7

Export

  1. Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty.  State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.
  2. Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export.  Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

 

Article 8

Import

  1. Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.
  2. State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty.  State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.
  3. Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

 

Article 9

Brokering

  1. Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

 

Article 10

Transit and Transshipment

  1. Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;
  2. Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

 

Article 11

Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

  1. Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible  of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
  2. Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
  3. States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
  4. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
  5. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

 

ARTICLE 12 

ENFORCEMENT

  1. Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.

 

ARTICLE 13

IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

  1. This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
  2. The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
  3. The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
    1. Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
    2. Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
    3. Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
    4. Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
    5. Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.

 

ARTICLE 14

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

  1. States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4.   Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

  1. In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
  3. Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

  1. This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
  2. This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
  3. This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7.  At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty.  Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8.  References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

 

Article 17

Entry into Force

  1. This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.
  2. For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.
  3. For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

 

Article 18

Withdrawal and Duration

  1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
  2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention.  It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary.  The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
  3. A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

 

Article 19
Reservations

  1. Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

 

Article 20
Amendments

  1. At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.
  2. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.
  3. Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
  4. A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

 

Article 21
Conference of States Parties

  1. The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

 

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

  1. States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
  3. States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

 

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

  1. States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

 

Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

  1. States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

 

Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

  1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
  2. The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

 

 

The Arms Trade Treaty – Falling Apart?

Monday, July 23rd, 2012

Original Story Via:  AmmoLand.com

By Paul Gallant, Sherry Gallant, Alan Chwick, & Joanne D. Eisen

Manasquan, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- With only a week left for treaty negotiations, one might surmise from the multitude of complaints of its proponents that the Treaty, as it is being drafted, is destined to fail because it is becoming too weak.

But no matter how “strong” its language, it will fail very simply because it’s a foolish idea, concocted with fantasies that cannot work.

Deepayan Basu Ray,of anti-gun group Oxfam, stated: “Under no circumstances should countries agree to a watered down Treaty that fails to control the arms trade and failsto reduce human suffering.”

And here we thought all along that the objective of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was to control the illegal arms trade, not to control the actions of tyrants (an impossible goal)!

Attempting to press home a sense of urgency, Anna MacDonald, Head of the Arms Control Campaign at (anti-gun) Oxfam, stated: “The negotiations are running at least a week behind schedule. The clock is ticking now and we need to see a greater sense of urgency from delegates, who must agree a strong treaty text [sic]. The world is watching, and people across the globe are demanding a treaty that will tighten up controls on the arms trade and close the loop holes that allow the illicit and irresponsible part of the trade to flourish. There is not a moment to lose.”

The arguments and complaints being bandied about by Treaty proponents are abundant.

For example,the July 19 issue of the Arms Trade Treaty Monitor states:

On Wednesday morning, the Chair of Main Committee I released a new draft text on the goals and objectives of the arms trade treaty (ATT). The most glaring change to the text was the removal of language stating that preventing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is an objective of the treaty. Leaving this out will have serious repercussions for the negotiation of other sections of the treaty and for the treaty’s implementation. It is an abso­lute necessity that this be corrected [sic].

The revised language, written by the Chair of the Main Committee I, states that “The goals of the treaty are….in order to…. ensure that the international trade in conventional arms does not contribute or facilitate human suffering….” This is upsetting to the Treaty’s advocates because “Without an explicit reference to gender-based violence, international humanitarian law (IHL), and international human rights law (IHRL), the treaty is in substantial danger of failing to meet its original purpose.

The Treaty’s proponents further complain about language that is watered down:

Achieving the fundamental goals of the ATT also means the treaty will need strong, clear, and effective implementation mechanisms. Unfortunately, the draft text on implementation does not yet meet this requirement. It suggests notification of export authorizations to relevant transit and transshipment states would be voluntary when it should be mandatory. It indicates that contractual obligations to sell arms would supersede the ATT when clearly the ATT should take precedence. It suggests actions states “may” take on brokering, when such actions should be mandatory.In general, it is vague on binding language. If adopted as written, the implementation section would undermine the treaty’s objectives [emphasis ours].

There are practical reasons for these complaints. The Treaty’s proponents need to pressure those countries that expect to be on the receiving end of generous financial gifts, and which are expected to increase their capacity to comply with the Treaty’s obligations. They also need to keep their supporters eager for the next “iterations”(revisions) to come.

The only benefits to us of a weaker treaty is that it will take longer to implement —and longer to fail— giving us the time we need to ride out the destructive waves of futile and foolish attempts to control the actions of evil-doers, and to destroy legal civilian firearm ownership.

We certainly should not be depending on U.S. politicians to safeguard our right to self-protection, as they have not done so in the past. We cannot depend on our national firearm organizations, as they are only as strong as we make them. (With an estimated 70-80 milliongun-owners in the U.S., how many support the various national firearm organizations??)

We need time to prepare for a new century of attempts to break the strength of civilian sovereignty, and a rash of new weapon-control laws attempting to bring us into compliance with “global norms,” luring us with the hint of paradise on earth.

About the authors:
Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice optometry and dentistry,respectively, on Long Island, NY, and have collaborated on firearm politics forthe past 20 years. They have also collaborated with David B. Kopel since 2000, and are Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, where Kopel is Research Director. Most recently, Gallant and Eisen have also written with Alan J.Chwick. Sherry Gallant has been instrumental in the editing of virtually all ofthe authors’ writings, and is immensely knowledgeable in the area of firearm politics; she actively co-authored this article.

Almost all of the co-authored writings of Gallant, Eisen, Kopel and Chwick can be found at www.gallanteisen.incnf.org, which contains more detailed information about their biographies and writing, and contains hyperlinks to manyof their articles. Their recent series focusing on the Arms Trade Treaty can be found primarily at www.gwg.incnf.org

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

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

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.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

UN gun control treaty will reveal gun laws Obama really supports

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

Original Story Via:  / FoxNews.com

Sometime later this week, the UN will finally unveil its Arms Trade Treaty. The exact date the treaty will be released is a secret.

Russia, China, France — with its new Socialist government — Britain and the Obama administration are writing the treaty behind closed doors. Yet even if the final treaty is being kept under wraps, we still have a pretty good idea of some of the requirements that will be in it.

The group writing the treaty is not promising. Russia and Britain ban handguns and many other types of weapons. The possession of guns for self-defense is completely prohibited in China. The Obama administration is undoubtedly the most hostile administration to gun ownership in US history, with Obama having personally supported bans of handguns and semi-automatic weapons before becoming president. And remember the recent scandal where the Obama administration was caught allowing guns go to Mexican drug gangs, hoping it would help push for gun control laws.

The treaty seems unlikely to ever receive the two-thirds majority necessary to be ratified by the US Senate, but that doesn’t mean it still won’t have consequences for Americans. In other countries with parliamentary systems, even if the relatively conservative parties oppose approval, ratification is just a matter of time until a left-wing government takes power. Reduced private gun ownership around the world will surely lead to more pressure for gun control in our own country.

The treaty officially aims to prevent rebels and terrorist groups from getting hold of guns. The treaty claims that at least 250,000 people die each year from armed conflicts and that the vast majority of deaths arise from so-called “small arms” — machine guns, rifles, and handguns.

Regulations of private ownership will supposedly prevent rebels and terrorist groups from getting ahold of guns. But governments, not private individuals, are the sources for these weapons. For example, the FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from the Venezuelan government.

The most likely regulations to be pushed by the UN treaty are those that have been the favorites of American gun control advocates for years — registration and licensing, micro-stamping ammunition, and restrictions on the private transfers of guns. Unfortunately, these measures have a long history of failure and primarily just inconvenience and disarm law-abiding gun owners.

Gun registration and licensing are pushed as a way to trace those who supply these illicit weapons. Yet, to see the problem with these regulations, one only needs to look at how ineffective they have been in solving crime. Canada just recently ended its long gun registry as it was a colossal waste of money.

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns — in the US, the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

Gun control advocates have long claimed registration is a safety issue. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal.

Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way. Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves.

From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveal that murder weapons were recovered in less than a third of the homicides with firearms. About three-quarters of the identified weapons were unregistered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide.

In only 62 cases — that is, nine per year, or about 1 percent of all homicides in Canada — was the gun registered to the accused. Even in these cases, the registry did not appear to have played an important role in finding the killer. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.

Note that the Canadian data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. It isn’t just the long-gun registry — there is also no evidence that Canada’s handgun registry, started in 1934, has ever been important in solving a single homicide.

Micro-stamping involves putting unique codes on a bullet. The most commonly discussed method is to have a special etching that is on the tip of a firing pin, the piece of metal that strikes a bullet and sets off the explosion, that will leave a mark on the bullet casing. The notion then is that if the casing is left a crime scene, the bullet can be traced back to the owner of the gun. The problem is that firing pins can easily be replaced or altered.

As to restrictions on the private transfers of guns, the most common type of regulation involves background checks. Yet, whether one is talking about the Brady Act or the so-called gun show loophole, economists and criminologists who have looked at this simply don’t find evidence that such regulations reduce crime and may even increase it. Indeed, as the surges in murder rates after gun bans in the US and around the world show, such regulations don’t stop criminals from getting guns. A huge percentage of violent crime in the US is drug gang related, and just as those gangs can bring in the illegal drugs, they can bring in the weapons that they use to protect that valuable property.

The treaty will give Americans yet another insight into the types of gun control laws that President Obama really supports. The good news is that the US Senate will almost certainly prevent him from getting the treaty adopted here. Most rest of the world won’t be so lucky.

A sneaky way to control guns: UN treaty could curtail our rights

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

Original Story Via:  / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Gun-control advocates and the Obama administration are rushing to complete negotiations in New York on a proposed international agreement called the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

They hope to finish the drafting within weeks, perhaps having a document ready for signature so that President Obama could press a lame-duck Senate to ratify it after our Nov. 6 elections.

Because these UNATT negotiations had long escaped serious media attention, many Americans are only now learning about their disturbing direction.

Gun-control groups, frustrated by years of failing to impose harsh measures on American firearms owners, have pursued a covert strategy. Instead of constant defeats in Congress and local legislatures, they instead shifted their attention to the international realm, hoping to achieve by indirection what they had consistently failed to do at home.

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.

There is, of course, little doubt why dictatorships and authoritarian regimes don’t want their oppressed citizens to have weapons — but such positions do not merit American support.

There are compelling arguments for closely monitoring foreign sales of truly military weapons such as machine guns, crew-served mortars and shoulder-fired missiles. Keeping such arms out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists is, beyond dispute, in our national interest.

But the United States already has a strong regulatory regime under the Arms Export Control Act to license the export of American-made weapons.

Extensive controls surround the ultimate purchasers and the uses to which the weapons are put.

We can be justifiably proud of our regulatory system. Unfortunately, however, there is little or no evidence the proposed UNATT will have any material effect on illicit international trafficking of weapons.

Many other nations, such as Russia, are much less scrupulous than we are. And countries that are unwilling or unable to police their own domestic manufacturers are not likely to change merely by signing yet another international agreement.

Moreover, there is a world of difference between weapons for military campaigns and those used for recreation and hunting. The U.S. has a long history of respecting the individual ownership of firearms. It is against this legitimate tradition of private ownership that gun-control advocates are exerting their efforts.

Their strategy surfaced most clearly in 2001 at a UN conference aiming to restrict international sales of “small arms and light weapons,” a precursor to the current negotiations. I was part of the Bush administration’s diplomacy to block this effort, which we ultimately succeeded in doing.

During the 2001 debate, I spoke at the UN General Assembly in New York, and the reaction to my remarks revealed the gun-controllers’ hidden agenda.

I said merely that the United States would not agree to any proposed treaty that would violate our Second Amendment freedoms. From the gun-control lobby’s reaction, you would have thought I said something outrageous or even dangerous. In truth, they knew we had uncovered their agenda and spiked it.

Indeed, during the Bush administration’s remaining years, despite occasional flareups of activity, the gun controllers laid low, waiting for their opportunity.

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.

Bolton was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush.

American Legion Calls for Rejection of Arms Trade Treaty

Monday, July 16th, 2012

Original Story Via: MarketWatch

INDIANAPOLIS, Jul 10, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Calling a proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty a “potential threat to our Constitutional rights,” the head of the nation’s largest organization of wartime veterans said the White House and the U.S. Senate should reject any proposal that usurps the sovereignty of the American people.

“Since the American Revolution, America’s veterans have defended the U.S. Constitution,” said American Legion National Commander Fang A. Wong. “Many died. Many bled. The American Legion has always opposed usurpation of U.S. sovereignty by an international body. We opposed the International Criminal Court on the grounds that it left U.S. service members vulnerable to charges of alleged war crimes. We opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) because it created a precedent for future share-the-wealth schemes. We opposed U.S. troops being placed under the command of U.N. forces. And any Arms Trade Treaty that not only threatens the Second Amendment rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, but also represents the growing movement to place an international entity above our governing and founding document will be opposed. While we understand the effort to combat the international trade in arms that make possible human rights violations and genocide, the drafters should be cognizant that the United States views its Constitution, including the Second Amendment, as preeminent.”

The American Legion has been a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution since the organization was founded in 1919. It has repeatedly passed national resolutions reaffirming support for the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights. At its 1996 national convention in Salt Lake City, American Legion delegates unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming that “the efforts of government should be directed to the enforcement of existing laws rather than banning the possession of firearms by the millions of our citizens who desire them for traditionally legitimate purposes…”

The American Legion was founded on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and youth programs. Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

SOURCE: The American Legion

From whom are ATT proponents getting their talking points?

Friday, July 13th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

Two opinion pieces by retired U.S. military personnel published on the same day in two different publications – both supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – bear strikingly similar comments, leading Gun Rights Examiner to question who provided talking points to a retired Navy rear admiral and retired Army major general.

These Op-Ed pieces appeared Thursday in Newsday and The Hill, at the same time that Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was blitzing the Internet to urge gun owners to oppose the treaty, and contact their two U.S. Senators. Gottlieb will be at the U.N. during the fateful week when negotiations on this treaty are to be wrapped up.

Gottlieb was instrumental in the creation of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

Retired military offices have just as much right to support or oppose an issue as any other American citizen. They just shouldn’t say it from what appears to have been the same script.

Rear Admiral (Ret.) Stuart F. Platt, joined by Galen Carey, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, had this to say in their July 12 Op-Ed that appeared in Newsday:

There’s less oversight on sales of grenade launchers in international markets than of iPods or bananas. Yes, you read that right: We have strict international rules and regulations on selling fruit and MP3 players, but no unifying international laws governing the sale of weapons…

“… While the United States maintains some of the strictest regulations on the import and export of tanks, guns, missiles, ammunition and other arms, many countries have little to no regulation at all. This patchwork system makes it all too easy for traffickers to sell powerful weapons and ammunition to terrorists and warlords that they can then use against our troops and innocent civilians.’

Compare those remarks to what appeared under the byline of Major General Roger R. Blunt (Ret.) in Thursday’s edition of The Hill:

We have international agreements regulating the cross-border sale of iPods and bananas, but we have no global treaties governing the international sale of weapons. The ATT would fix that by becoming the first-ever treaty governing the international trade of conventional weapons.

“The United States has some of the strictest regulations when it comes to the import and export of tanks, attack helicopters, guns, grenades and ammunition, but many countries — especially in the developing world — have little to no regulation. This patchwork system of national laws rewards bad actors by making it easy for them to exploit loopholes. These loopholes are used to arm the terrorists and insurgents killing our troops and warlords who are responsible for untold suffering throughout the developing world.’

A remarkable coincidence of commentary?

One would hardly question the patriotism of men who devoted their lives to the defense of this country. However, the issue at hand isn’t patriotism, but United States constitutional sovereignty. In this case, the Second Amendment-protected individual right to keep and bear arms is allegedly at risk, according to CCRKBA and other gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre spoke at the U.N. this week, as reported by this column, and CCRKBA was involved in crafting House and Senate legislation to prevent a global gun control treaty from affecting the Second Amendment.

Today’s exercise is about the First Amendment, which gun rights advocates also hold dear, along with the other amendments that delineate individual rights in the Bill of Rights. This column has no dispute with Maj. Gen. Blunt, Rear Admiral Platt or Mr. Carey about exercising their right to free speech.

It’s just curious how they managed to say it so similarly on the same day in two different publications.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment

Friday, July 13th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Foundry.org

By Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.

For much of the past two weeks, I’ve been attending the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty conference in New York and blogging on the craziness of Turtle Bay. A number of comments on my blogs—and many external commentators—have raised the question of whether the ATT is, pure and simple, a “gun grab” treaty.

Let’s start with three basic points:

  1. No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities.
  2. The U.N. and many of its member states are hostile to the private ownership of firearms.
  3. The U.S. is exceptional: It is one of the few nations that has a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment.

Thus, the default U.N. tendency—partly out of malevolence, partly out of ignorance—is to act in ways contrary to the Second Amendment, and the fundamental job of the U.S. at the U.N. is to try to stop bad things from happening. The alternative of completely quitting the entire U.N. is appealing but unwise, because the U.N. would keep doing things that would affect the U.S. even if we were not in it.

The U.N. is aware of the political dangers of appearing to stomp openly on the Second Amendment. It uses code words; it runs closed meetings—a veteran of the process tells me that meetings were normally open until the National Rifle Association began showing up at them—and, above all, it plays a long game. A big problem with talking about the ATT as a “gun grab” treaty is that the U.N. works by taking slices: when it comes to the U.N., being outraged by one development is no substitute for focusing on how the slices pile up over time.

I don’t give much too much credit to the U.S. for stating as a red line that it will uphold the Second Amendment, because that raises the question of what relevant activities are (as the State Department puts it in its red line) “permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.” Simply backing the Second Amendment is good, but it is better to spell out—as Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) did at Heritage recently—exactly what rights and activities you believe the Second Amendment protects. Only in that way does a promise to uphold the Second Amendment carry the full weight that it deserves.

So what are the domestic concerns posed by the ATT? Four are important.

  1. Transfer requirements. First, there are specific textual requirements. The most recent draft text states, for example, that the ATT will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then goes on to define “international transfers” as “the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.”

Does this mean that any transfers, including domestic ones, count as international and are thus subject to the treaty’s provisions? There are similar concerns related to the potential reporting requirements of the treaty and thus to the possible creation of a U.N.-based gun registry. If it is to be true to its published red lines, the U.S. cannot accept any of this.

  1. International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.
  2. Further review of the rules. This is not the end of the process. The ATT will be elaborated at review conferences, where the U.S. goal is to develop “best practices” for its implementation. Similarly, if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT.
  3. Constitutional interpretation. Finally, the ATT is part of a process that will inspire judges and legal theorists who believe that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted in light of transnational norms. This is the most important problem of all, though it is broader than the ATT.

Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs” are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.” On the other hand, the ATT should raise concerns beyond the Second Amendment. Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA) recently led 130 of his colleagues in expressing a range of concerns about the ATT to the Administration.

It makes sense to balance legitimate expressions of concern for the Second Amendment with concerns on economic, foreign policy, and national security grounds. There’s enough to dislike about the ATT to keep everyone busy.

SAAMI official statement at UN ATT negotiations

Friday, July 13th, 2012

SAAMI – the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute – delivered the following official statement at the UN Arms Trade Treaty negotiations.

Click here for the official copy via SAAMI

UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty

New York, 11 July 2012

Statement by Richard Patterson, Managing Director

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc.

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.

VIDEO: NFA’s Sheldon Clare on the UN ATT

Friday, July 13th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Sun News Canada

Global Gun Grab: Sheldon Clare from the Canadian National Firearms Association (NFA) talks about the UN’s infatuation with getting it wrong when it comes to guns.

For more information on IAPCAR member NFA visit http://www.nfa.ca/

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

 

Canada’s National Firearms Association Statement to UN on ATT

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Click here to read document: NFA UN Presentation on ATT July 2012

More information about IAPCAR member NFA of Canada is available at http://www.nfa.ca/

STATEMENT TO UNITED NATIONS ON ATT

Mr. President, I am Sheldon Clare, President of Canada’s National Firearms Association.  Our members are collectors of everything from cartridges to fully automatic firearms; they’re sports shooters and Olympic competitors, wholesalers and retailers, re-enactors, members of the movie industry, hunters, people who hand load ammunition, and those who own firearms for defence.  Our members are concerned that UN attempts to regulate trade in arms are misdirected and will have an unfair and unreasonable effect upon the ability of free people to have access to firearms and ammunition for perfectly legitimate purposes. It is a false premise that civilian access to small arms is the problem.

Canada’s National Firearms Association (NFA) recommends that controls on small arms and light weapons be limited solely to major weapon systems possessed or sold by nation states – not firearms owned or desired to be owned by civilians, also called non-state actors. The rights and property of Canadians, and our firearms businesses engaged in the lawful trade in firearms and ammunition, including surplus firearms and ammunition, must not be subject to UN edict or control.  Quite simply, these are matters of national sovereignty, civil freedoms and property rights, and are related to national culture.  Also, marking and accounting for ammunition would be exceptionally onerous and expensive for manufacturers and firearm owners alike. Control of ammunition would be unreasonable, unnecessary, and impossible.

The proposed Implementation Support Unit (ISU) could potentially serve as a form of promotional and enforcement agency for the ATT and thus interfere with national sovereignty over laws affecting firearms ownership and use. It could be used to operate a form of international registration system. Funds given to this body and other initiatives such as the Victims Assistance Fund could be directed to terrorist states. Supporting these potentially huge and inappropriate expenses is not in the best interests of Canadians.

Reducing arms in civilian hands can significantly limit the ability of people to defend themselves. This is especially important in the event of unrest and disorder, or in case of state-mandated crimes against humanity. Civilian ownership of arms is an important factor in preventing and limiting the effect of events such as what occurred in Sebrinica and Rwanda. While governments need to act against terrorism, perhaps better ways to deal with unrest would be to address the economic situations, political differences, and human rights issues that contribute to people agitating for change.

A global ATT would only be in the interests of those who would seek economic advantage by limiting market opportunity and of regimes who would use such a treaty to disarm their citizens in order to rule through fear.   Thank you for your consideration Mr. President.

 

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal?

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Original Story Via:  Forbes.com

By Larry Bell

One year ago I wrote an article titled “U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms” which has recently gained a great deal of renewed public interest. This update reviews some more recent developments, offering additional perspective about an immediate matter which should be of great concern to all who value rights guaranteed by our Second Amendment.

The Obama administration is actively engaged in negotiations to finalize details for a new global agreement premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates”. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon describes its purpose, “Our goal is clear: a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence…It is ambitious, but it is achievable.”

Under the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. originally voted against a resolution that began the process in 2006. However, the current administration reversed that policy, and strongly supports its enactment. In January 2010, U.S. representatives joined with those of 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution to draft a blueprint for enactment in 2012. This activity is planned to be completed by July 27, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push hard for Senate ratification. Previously led by the United Kingdom, there can be no doubt that the U.N.’s 193-member General Assembly will approve it.

Foreign ministers of the U.K., France, Germany and Sweden want the treaty to cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies. They also advocate that it include strong provisions governing human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development. (More about sustainable development later.)

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Internal Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, has stated that the Obama administration does not support regulation of ammunition, but only wants to make it more difficult to “conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms”. In addition, a press release issued by the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs says that “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons.”

Such statements have many very strong skeptics, both inside and outside Congress. One reason, among many, is that Iran, a country that is one of the world’s worst human rights violators, yet often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council…yes Iran, arms supplier to many of America’s most determined adversaries… was selected for a top Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) planning conference position. The members, apparently including U.S. representatives, authorized this selection shortly after the same U.N. found the very same Iran guilty of transferring guns and bombs to the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad who is presently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens. Meanwhile, the U.N., America included, purporting to be distraught about illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms, watches in the wings as these tragedies unfold. Of course, they’re very busy. Those arms control planning conferences require a lot of attention.

On June 29, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton arguing that the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter charges that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Democrats have accused Republicans of making this a political issue, maintaining that the treaty poses no Second Amendment threat. Others, such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, caution gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

So let’s review some recent history and see if gun owners and other Second Amendment defenders might have very good reasons to take issue with this treaty. Actually, we don’t have to look back very far at all.

Consider the Fast and Furious debacle, an operation that was represented to be all about targeting bad guys who are committing violent crimes on both sides of our border with Mexico. There can be no remaining doubt that the program was really aimed at border gun shops and their right to conduct legal civilian firearms sales.

And after the 2010 Republican House cleaning dashed President Obama’s dream of a carbon cap-and-trade program, he wasted no time finding a way to circumvent that pesky obstacle. His EPA is gleefully pursuing that same anti-fossil energy agenda. Meanwhile, Congress sits idly by and allows this breach of its constitutional responsibility established by separation of powers to continue.

Then there’s the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

Both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, yet they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W’s term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote.

Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation, believes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected to LOST reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: “This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country’s environmental policy. That’s generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans.”

Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry and other proponents have been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive.

But, like LOST, the Arms Trade Treaty can’t be enacted unless Congress ratifies it. Right? And, of course, they would never approve any global agreement that will infringe upon our constitutional Second Amendment protections. Right? Well, let’s assume for argument’s sake that they won’t. But now consider another possibility, something called a “soft law”.

Remember that sustainable development agenda mentioned earlier that the European foreign ministers want to incorporate into the treaty provisions? Originally intended to be implemented in connection with a U.N. treaty, an “Agenda 21” plan was enacted as a soft law in 1993 creating a nongovernmental organization, the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI), by Executive Order after the Clinton administration was unsuccessful in getting Congress to ratify the program. They wouldn’t approve the treaty because it would transfer massive regulatory control over broad aspects of U.S. energy production and consumption. In 2003 the NGO’s name was changed to “ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability” to emphasize “local” and diminish concerns about “international” influence and associations with U.N. political and financial ties. ICLEI’s are now active in most of our counties On its web page, “ICLEI: Connecting Leaders”, the organization explains that their networking strategy connects cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies.

Agenda 21 envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption. A summary version titled AGENDA 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993), calls for “…a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.” The report emphasizes that “This shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

ICLEI’s web page states that its Local Agenda 21 [LA21] Model Communities Programme is “designed to aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development.” As Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle and an advisor to the Clinton-Gore administration’s Council on Sustainable Development and to U.S. AID commented at a 1998 U.N. Environmental Development Forum in London titled “The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium”, “In some cases, LA21 is seen as an attack on the power of the nation-state.” He went on to say, “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process will very likely bring out many…who would work to defeat any elected official…undertaking Local Agenda 21 …So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”

And so they have. “Comprehensive planning”, “growth management” and “smart growth” (which is Agenda 21 with a new name). All mean pretty much the same thing… centralized control over virtually every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population levels, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education.

So this time the U.N.-sponsored ATT initiative, whether enacted by Congress or through a soft law Executive Order, can be expected to receive an appealing identity as well. Most likely it will purport to protect us from “terrorism”, “insurgency” and/or “international crime syndicates”. Perhaps, without saying so, it will be pitched to protect us even from ourselves.

Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

But then, as a former lecturer in constitutional law, wouldn’t he certainly realize that the U.N.’s gun- grab agenda violates our sovereign rights? Perhaps the answer to that question warrants some serious reflection!

UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Original Story Via: FoxNews.com

UNITED NATIONS –  A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations — with Iran playing a key role — could expose the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments — and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

The world body has already been criticized for appointing Iran to a key role in the talks, even as Tehran stands accused by the UN of arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody crackdown on rebels. The Obama administration in 2009 reversed Bush administration policy by agreeing to take part in the talks. But in another exclusive interview with FoxNews.com, the top government official on the issue under President Bush says he’s seen nothing new to convince him the U.S. should be at the table today.

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.

Suchan also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.

On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the “UN’s refusal” to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

Ratification by two-thirds of the Senate is necessary before an international treaty negotiated by the executive branch can become U.S. law. But the treaty could still go into effect elsewhere once 65 countries ratify it. Such a development could change the pattern of world arms transfers and reduce the U.S. share, which stands at about 40 percent of up to $60 billion in global deals.

The Bush administration opposed a 2006 UN General Assembly resolution launching the treaty process, but President Obama decided the U.S. would take part on condition the final agreement be reached by consensus — thereby giving any of the 193 participating states an effective veto.

The safeguard is insufficient for opponents of the U.S. participation, not least because UN talks invariably involve compromise.

“The administration swears they have a whole bunch of red lines, and they will block consensus if anyone crosses them,” said Suchan, now a government relations consultant as senior associate with the Commonwealth Consulting Corporation in Arlington, Va.

“But the dynamics of international negotiations are that once you get 90 percent of what you seek, you say, ‘Maybe there is a way we can finesse the final 10 percent.’”

A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province.

This would be highly problematic for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup.

Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel.

Suchan said U.S. arms trade law is seen as the global “gold standard” for regulating arms transfers, but doubted many countries would be willing to raise the bar that high. Instead, the treaty that emerges is expected to set a lower global standard – which Suchan said would have the effect of reducing Washington’s ability to press for voluntary arms embargoes against rogue states.

“We might want to urge a country to not sell arms to a state whose government is particularly odious,” Suchan explained.

“But that government could then ask whether the sale is prohibited under the Arms Trade Treaty – and if it is not, they would argue they are meeting the international standard.”

U.S. gun lobby concern focuses on the emphasis the treaty places on governmental – as opposed to individual – rights to guns, LaPierre explained.

“They’re trying to impose a UN policy that gives guns to the governments – but the UN doesn’t in turn make moral judgments as to whether these governments are good or bad,” he said.

“If you’re the government, you get the guns, if you’re a civilian, you don’t. But this will just end up helping evil governments and tyrants.”

For LaPierre, the emphasis he sees at the UN on governmental rights reflects what he believes is a wider international tradition that contrasts with the historical American emphasis on individual rights.

“The UN view is that governments – not individual citizens – ought to protect people,” he said, signaling that this principle permeates the draft that negotiators are currently working with.

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations.

“If they get this through, then what comes along is the institutionalizing of the whole gun control-ban movement within the bureaucracy of UN – with a permanent funding mechanism that we [in America] will be mainly paying for,” he said.

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

Steven Edwards is a UN-based freelance journalist

AUDIO: Panel on UN Arms Treaty, IAPCAR

Tuesday, July 10th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

Last year the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Chicago held a panel discussion on how to fight international limitations on civilian arms rights.

The topics ranged from legal actions in other countries, the actual actions at the UN, and the formation of the new international gun rights group IAPCAR.

The Gun Rights Policy Conference scheduled for September 28th 29th and 30th in Orlando Florida is currently accepting registration at http://saf.org/default.asp?p=GRPC

 

UN ATT Chairman’s Paper

Tuesday, July 10th, 2012

Their official UN ATT proposal: Chair Paper 3 July 2012

Proposal does include civilian firearms and ammunition, not limited to tanks, missiles, bombs, jets, and helicopters.

More info available at the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty Website: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

 

In case you missed it: Dishonest Humanitarianism

Monday, July 9th, 2012

In case you missed it, the article Jeff Moran of TSM Worldwide published on TheGunMag.com and IAPCAR.org was featured in an AmmoLand.com blog article.

Linked: AmmoLand.com

IAPCAR WELCOMES PHILIPPINES GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

Friday, July 6th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

The A2S5 Coalition of the Philippines is the latest organization to join forces with the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), raising their international membership to 23 member organizations in 15 different nations around the globe.

With member groups on every continent, IAPCAR executive director Philip Watson has been more than pleased with the positive response the group has received.

“With nine new member groups all from different countries since last fall, IAPCAR’s steady growth has been a welcome sign among those that love freedom and a warning to those that do not.” Watson also noted, “It proves that people in all corners of the globe believe in the right of personal security and the defense of one’s home and family. The human right of self-defense is a value we share across all international borders, regardless of race, nationality, or ethnic origin.”

“This is a significant development for us,” said Mike Melchor, the A2S5 Coalition’s director for strategic plans.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who was instrumental in creating IAPCAR, was very happy to have A2S5 as IAPCAR’s newest affiliate in the Philippines.

“We are very excited to welcome our friends from the Philippines,” he observed. “Gun owners in the Philippines are currently faced with increasing regulatory actions on civilian ownership of firearms. We can be helpful to each other in our movement to protect firearms rights in our home countries and around the world.”

The Arms Trade Treaty is currently under negotiation at the United Nations and set to be signed the last week of July, placing many arms rights groups at odds with global gun control advocates. “IAPCAR strongly opposes any UN treaty infringing on national sovereignty or individual gun rights,” noted Julianne Versnel, director of operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, the second influential gun rights group instrumental in forming IAPCAR.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (http://iapcar.com/) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to 23 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Disarmed America: Tying UN treaty to DC’s 2A resistance

Friday, July 6th, 2012

Original Story Via:  – Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

The same political mindset that is pushing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) talks this month is also at work keeping residents of Washington, D.C. from exercising their Second Amendment rights, and one might suggest that Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb is strongly linked to both quagmires.

As this column has noted, Gottlieb has been actively battling the ATT through his international activities related to the formation of IAPCAR (the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights) and his participation in the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA).

And, though not identified by name, the handiwork of the Gottlieb-led Second Amendment Foundation was alluded to by the Washington Times Thursday in a piece about resistance to federal concealed carry reciprocity is stymied over amendments that would allow firearms carrying in the District of Columbia. The newspaper discussed the resistance to District carry by noting, “Currently, the District and Illinois stand alone in banning the bearing of arms outright. This could be legally problematic. A federal court recently ruled in the Woollard case that Maryland’s carry laws were too strict, and the state appealed the ruling.”

The Woollard case was a SAF effort. Why there is some mental block in the mainstream press toward reporting SAF court activities is a mystery. In much of the reportage dealing with the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago victory, SAF was also not mentioned. Instead, reporters frequently alluded to it as “a victory for the gun lobby” or “a victory for gun rights advocates.”

In Washington, D.C. the political climate is definitely overcast by anti-gun paranoia and elitism. The Washington Times piece quoted Phil Mendelson, chairman of the D.C. city council, who stated, “I do think carrying has severe implications for the nation’s capital. “We’re different from Maryland because we have motorcades, the president around town, members of Congress going to the supermarket unescorted.”

Imagine that. Members of Congress going to the supermarket unescorted. Millions of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens do that every day, and they manage to get back home in one piece, even though millions of their fellow citizens are legally carrying — unobtrusively in their presence, one might add.

The same mindset that wants to keep District residents disarmed wants to plant the seeds for global civilian disarmament with the ATT. As a story carried by CNS News Thursday explained, there are grave concerns about the ATT and what it could ultimately mean to Second Amendment sovereignty. President Obama may glibly dismiss such concerns in his strutting, hip upscale down-his-nose public speaking style, but this is the same guy who reversed long-standing U.S. policy on global gun control by embracing the ATT back in 2009 after the Bush administration previously stood firm in singular opposition.

He’s also the same guy who said Obamacare is not a tax, but Chief Justice John Roberts certainly corrected him on that one.

Gottlieb’s Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms had a hand in creating legislation in the House and Senate that would derail ATT threats to the Second Amendment, as this column noted. There is considerable Capitol Hill concern about the ATT, especially in the wake of the Obamacare surprise, that it was constitutional after all…because it is a tax.

Bureaucrats and politicians who seek to disarm people, whether through local resistance to gun rights expansion in this country, or promotion of broad international treaties that are prone to misuse and abuse, are misguided at best. Public disarmament has never had a good outcome for the public.

Such disarmament comes in many forms, typically by increments and by the time the damage is done, how it got started is less important than how it can be reversed. In this country we’ve had help from the courts, with cases pushed by SAF and others, but an international treaty will be beyond the power of U.S. courts, and that might just be what global gun control proponents are counting on.

Palestinian status snit delays UN ATT talks

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Original Story Via Dave Workman, Gun Rights Examiner

American gun rights advocates might thank the Palestinians and their supporters for delaying, until Tuesday afternoon, anyway, the start of the long-awaited Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations at the United Nations, although it leaves two key players from Washington State in a bit of a lurch.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and his wife, Julianne, have been key players in organizing the opposition to the ATT. Both are planning to be at the U.N. sometime during the negotiation process. It is widely known that CCRKBA staff had a role in crafting legislation sponsored by Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) and Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) that would protect the Second Amendment from any such international treaty.

The session is now scheduled to begin at noon Pacific Time. It is not clear when representatives from Non-Government Organizations (NGO) will get to speak. Not only will the Gottliebs be attending at some point, so also is Wayne LaPierre from the National Rifle Association.

What has become clear lately is that despite the eagerness of many U.N. members to adopt some sort of treaty, there is opposition from powerful corners, including China and Russia.

The United States under Barack Obama reversed position a couple of years ago, and now officially supports a treaty, but that does not mean the document has a chance of getting through the Senate ratification process. If there is any question about Unites States constitutional sovereignty, the ATT is probably a non-starter.

Alan Gottlieb has been working to counter international gun control efforts for several years. He was a key player in the formation of IAPCAR, the International Association for Protection of Civilian Arms Rights. Both Gottliebs have been back and forth to Europe several times, participating in the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities.

The irony about Obama’s support for the treaty should not be lost on gun owners following the Fast and Furious debacle. While the current administration wants to clamp down on global gun trafficking, it continues withholding documents key to the investigation of that scandal by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

While President Obama will apparently sign the treaty – which proponents want to be legally binding – his own attorney general stands in contempt of Congress.

Wednesday is Independence Day, but there could be fireworks of the political variety starting Tuesday afternoon, and continuing through the month.

Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious’

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Original Story Via:  CNS News | Fred Lucas

Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama’s transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.

When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.

“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.

Over the course of several days, CNSNews.com left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.

Dennis K. Burke has had a long career working as an aide and political appointee to Democratic elected officials. From 1989 to 1994, he was a counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working in that capacity for several years on an assault-weapons ban, which was finally enacted on Sept. 13, 1994 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That act expired on Sept. 13, 2004. (See NYT: Dennis Burke, Sen. DeConcini, Weapons Ban.pdf)

From 1994-95, Burke served in the Clinton Justice Department in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and in 1997-99, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona.

From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.

In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that on Jan. 9, 2008, while working as Gov. Napolitano’s chief of staff, Burke contributed $2,000 to then-Sen Obama’s presidential primary campaign. Since 1997, according to FEC records, Burke has contributed a total of $16,350 to various Democratic candidates.

After Obama was elected in November 2008, Burke joined his presidential transition team, serving on the Immigration Policy Working Group.

Eight days before Obama’s inauguration, on Jan. 12, 2009–while Burke was working on the transition team–Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, Obama “pledged” to take action to stop the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.

Obama also decided to put Burke’s old boss, incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in a leadership role in making the gun-trafficking problem a top priority.

“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement at the time. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico.”

When Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary, Burke moved from the Obama transition team to become her senior adviser. On Feb. 25, 2009, a little more than a month after Obama had made his “pledge” to Calderon, Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee. She stressed that stopping the flow of guns to Mexico was a top priority of the Obama administration and key focus of her work.

Responding to a question about violence on the border, Napolitano said the administration was going to work with the Mexican government on the issue. Then she said: “Secondly, it is looking at, government-wide, at what we can do to stop the southbound export of weaponry, particularly assault-type weapons and grenades that are being used in that drug war.”

Napolitano further noted that drug cartels were targeting Mexican government officials and law enforcement officers, and that, given the seriousness of the threat, Obama’s national security adviser, the attorney general, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Customs (of which the Border Patrol is part) would all be working on the issue.

“I’ve met with the attorney general of Mexico and the ambassador already,” said Napolitano during the February 2009 hearing. “One of the things that I particularly am focused on is southbound traffic in guns, particularly assault weapons, and cash that are being used to funnel and fund these very, very violent cartels.”

The same day Napolitano testified in the Homeland Security Committee, Attorney General Holder addressed the issue of drug-trafficking-related gun violence in northern Mexico. He said he had had conversations about the issue with the Mexican attorney general and that the Obama administration believed that re-instating the assault-weapons ban in the United States–the one Dennis Burke had initially helped push through as Senate aide in 1990s–would help the situation in Mexico.

“Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Four-and-a-half months later, on July 10, 2009, Obama nominated Burke to be the U.S. attorney in Arizona. The Senate confirmed Burke on Sept. 15 of that year.

It was in July 2010, after his nomination as U.S. attorney, that Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times that he had “been working on homeland security and border enforcement issues” during the transition, and that there had “clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing.”

“What I hope to do, if confirmed by the Senate,” Burke told the paper, “is to ensure that those plans and strategies are being implemented and we’re moving quickly on prosecutions.”

After the nomination, former Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) had high praise for Burke’s work in getting the assault weapons ban through Congress back in the 1990s.

“We ended up getting senators who had never voted for a gun bill, like Lloyd Benson of Texas and Sam Nunn of Georgia and Al D’Amato of New York, who were friends of mine that I worked real hard,” DeConcini told the Arizona Capitol Times. “But Dennis worked the staff. He was responsive to them and several of the senators mentioned to me what a great staffer you’ve got there, and I said, ‘Boy, you’re telling me.’”

The Arizona Republic has reported that “DeConcini said Burke fostered the measure in concert with a key figure in the White House, policy analyst Rahm Emanuel, who years later would become chief of staff for President Obama. … ‘Dennis was the one who worked with everyone on the Judiciary Committee to line up these members and votes,’ DeConcini said. ‘Dennis had all these pictures of these guns–the Streetsweepers and the AK-47s. And it passed by one vote. A lot of it was not my eloquence on the bill, it was stuff that Dennis had done.’”

Six weeks after Burke was confirmed, on Oct. 26, 2009, Eric Holder named him to the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) of U.S. Attorneys. In his capacity as an adviser to Holder, Burke chaired the AGAC subcommittee on border and immigration law enforcement while Operation Fast and Furious was happening.

The same month that Burke joined Holder’s advisory committee with a specific responsibility to report to Deputy Attorney General David Ogden on border and immigration enforcement, Ogden’s office made a significant change in the federal government’s strategy for dealing with gun-trafficking on the Mexican border.

“This new strategy directed federal law enforcement to shift its focus away from seizing firearms from criminals as soon as possible, and to focus instead on identifying members of trafficking networks,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa wrote in a May 3 memo to other members of his committee, summarizing what the committee had learned about Fast and Furious.

“The Office of the Deputy Attorney General shared this strategy with the heads of many Department components, including ATF,” said Issa.

The next month, November 2009, the ATF in Arizona moved forward with the new strategy by creating Operation Fast and Furious.

“Members of the ATF Phoenix Field Division, led by Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, became familiar with this new strategy and used it in creating Fast and Furious,” Issa wrote in his May 3 memo. “In mid-November 2009, just weeks after the strategy was issued, Fast and Furious began. Its objective was to establish a nexus between straw purchasers of firearms in the United States and Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) operating on both sides of the United States-Mexico border.”

“Straw purchasers,” Issa explained, “are individuals who are legally entitled to purchase firearms for themselves, but who unlawfully purchase weapons with the intent to transfer them to someone else, in this case DTOs or other criminals.”

Remarkably, under Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF deliberately allowed guns to move south across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of the drug cartels. Weapons were allowed to be sold to straw purchasers with the intent of tracing the guns to the cartels.

“During Fast and Furious, ATF agents used an investigative technique known as ‘gunwalking’–that is, allowing illegally purchased weapons to be transferred to third parties without attempting to disrupt or deter the illegal activity,” Issa wrote in the May 3 memo. “ATF agents abandoned surveillance on known straw purchasers after they illegally purchased weapons that ATF agents knew were destined for Mexican drug cartels.”

The purpose of the operation was to trace the guns recovered from crimes scenes “to their original straw purchaser, in an attempt to establish a connection between that individual and the DTO.”

The ATF Phoenix Field Division applied to Justice Department headquarters to become an “Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force” (OCDETF) case. In preparing their application in early January 2009, the ATF in Phoenix wrote a memo explaining the investigative technique of Fast and Furious.

The application for Fast and Furious was approved and, in January 2010, as Issa stated in his memo, it “became a prosecutor-led OCDETF Strike Force case, meaning that ATF would join with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.”

In other words, it was under the leadership of Dennis Burke.

“Although ATF was the lead law enforcement agency for Fast and Furious, its agents took direction from prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Issa says in his May 3 memo. “The lead federal prosecutor for Fast and Furious was Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who played an integral role in the day-to-day, tactical management of the case.”

Issa states in his memo that Burke’s U.S. attorney’s office made it more difficult for ATF agents to interdict guns.

“Many ATF agents working on Operation Fast and Furious came to believe that some of the most basic law enforcement techniques used to interdict weapons required the explicit approval of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and specifically from Hurley,” Issa wrote. “On numerous occasions, Hurley and other federal prosecutors withheld this approval, to the mounting frustration of ATF agents. The U.S. Attorney’s Office chose not to use other available investigative tools common in gun trafficking cases, such as civil forfeitures and seizure warrants, during the seminal periods of Fast and Furious.”

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office advised ATF that agents needed to meet unnecessarily strict evidentiary standards in order to speak with suspects, temporarily detain them, or interdict weapons,” Issa said. “ATF’s reliance on this advice from the U.S. Attorney’s Office during Fast and Furious resulted in many lost opportunities to interdict weapons.”

A report on Fast and Furious released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats in January 2012, indicates that on Jan. 5, 2010, officials from the ATF Phoenix office met with Assistant U.S. Attorney Hurley and determined that the gun-trafficking investigation should continue because it wasn’t ready for prosecution. The Democrat report quotes a briefing paper prepared by the ATF three days after the meeting–which would be Jan. 8, 2010–that says U.S. Attorney Burke was briefed on the matter and agreed that the investigation should continue.

“Investigative and prosecutions strategies were discussed and a determination was made that there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution,” said the ATF briefing paper, “therefore, additional firearms purchases should be monitored and additional evidence continued to be gathered. This investigation was briefed to United States Attorney Dennis Burke, who concurs with the assessment of his line prosecutors and fully supports the continuation of this investigation.”

Eight days after this briefing paper was produced, on Jan. 16, 2010, straw buyers bought three assault-weapon rifles, two of which would figure prominently in the unraveling of the program. They were the weapons that would later be found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

On. Nov. 24, 2010, just a few weeks before Terry was murdered, Burke–who had begun his career in public service working to enact an assault-weapons ban–had an email exchange with another U.S. attorney about an investigation he was working on that involved “straw purchasing of assault weapons.”

“What a great investigation. What is the ETI (estimated time of indictment!)” U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan for the Western District of Washington said to Burke in an email.

Burke responded, “Would love to chat. We are about to indict around [REDACTED] clowns for a Gun Trafficking to Mexico operation. It’s a T-III investigation that we have been working w/ATF for a long time and IRS is all over some money laundering charges. It’s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasing of assault weapons. Some of the weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the Cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.”

The e-mail exchange, with the subject line “Gun Shows,” did not specifically mention Operation Fast and Furious.

Operation Fast and Furious was halted after Dec. 14, 2010 after two of the guns that a straw buyer had been allowed to purchase during the operation ended up at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Fast and Furious later became the subject of a congressional investigation, and an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

On Dec. 14, the same day of Terry’s murder, Burke sent an email replying to an e-mail from Monty Wilkinson, Attorney General Holder’s deputy chief of staff. In this email, Burke said his office had a large firearms trafficking case that he wanted to discuss. In a follow up e-mail the next day–Dec. 15, 2010–Burke alerted Wilkinson that Agent Terry had been murdered. Wilkinson responded, “Tragic, I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

The exchanges between Burke and Holder’s deputy chief of staff at the time of Agent Terry’s murder are reported in the report published by the committee Democrats.

“Several hours later on December 15, 2010, U.S. Attorney Burke learned that Agent Terry had been murdered,” says the Democratic report. “He alerted Mr. Wilkinson, who replied, ‘Tragic, I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.'”

“Later that same day, U.S. Attorney Burke learned that two firearms found at Agent Terry’s murder scene had been purchased by a suspect in Operation Fast and Furious,” says the Democratic report. “He sent an email to Mr. Wilkinson forwarding this information and wrote: ‘The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about—they were AK-47’s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.’ Mr. Wilkinson replied, ‘I’ll call tomorrow.’

Despite this email from Wilkinson, Burke told the committee he did not recall actually having such a phone conversation, and the Department of Justice told the committee that Wilksonson does not recall making the call. Also Attorney General Holder himself testified that his deputy chief of staff never told him about the tie between the gun-trafficking investigation and Agent Terry’s murder.

“In his interview with Committee staff, U.S. Attorney Burke stated that he did not recall having any subsequent conversation with Mr. Wilkinson that ‘included the fact that Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene’ of Agent Terry’s murder,” the Democrat report said.

“In a November 2011 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles Grassley asked Attorney General Holder, ‘Did Mr. Wilkinson say anything to you about the connection between Agent Terry’s death and the ATF operation?'”

The Democratic report says: “Attorney General Holder responded, ‘No, he did not.” In a January 27, 2011, letter to the Committee, the Department stated that Mr. Wilkinson ‘does not recall a follow-up call with Burke or discussing this aspect of the matter with the Attorney General.'”

Brian Terry’s murder caused an apparent change of plans for the Justice Department.

“Washington-based Justice Department officials had earlier discussed bringing Attorney General Eric Holder to Phoenix for a triumphant press conference with Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to herald the conclusion of the Department’s flagship firearms trafficking case,” said a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee memo from May 3, 2012. “In the aftermath of Agent Terry’s death, the task of announcing indictments at a press conference fell to ATF Phoenix Division Special Agent in Charge William Newell and Burke. Holder did not attend.

“At the press conference on January 25, 2011, Newell triumphantly announced the indictment of 20 members of an arms trafficking syndicate that had been supplying weapons to the Sinaloa Cartel, Mexico’s largest and most powerful cartel led by the notorious Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman,” the May 3 memo said.

When Newell was asked if ATF agents purposefully allowed weapons to enter Mexico, he responded, “Hell no.”

Two days after the press conference, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote then-Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson about reports from whistleblowers regarding gunwalking and Agent Terry’s death.

Allegations of gunwalking “are based on categorical falsehoods,” Burke said in a Jan. 31, 2011 e-mail to Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

Days later, on Feb. 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley denying that the Justice Department “sanctioned” the sale of guns to people they believed were going to deliver them to Mexican drug cartels.

As the scandal began to build by that summer, Brian Terry’s mother–Josephine Terry–testified at the hearing of the House Oversight Committee. The mother of the slain Border Patrol agent told the committee that Burke informed the family of the agent’s death, but did not provide details about Operation Fast and Furious.

“He was just trying to explain to us exactly what happened and–roundabout way–we really never got anything out of the visit that he did have,” Josephine Terry told the committee on June 15, 2011. Asked how she found out about Fast and Furious, she responded, “Most of it I heard is from the media. We haven’t really got anything direct–phone calls or nothing from anybody.”

At the same hearing, Weich, who wrote the Feb. 4, 2011 letter to Grassley, told the committee, “Everything that we say is true to the best of our knowledge at the time we say it. As more facts come out, obviously our understanding of the situation is enhanced.”

On June 29, 2011, a reporter asked the Oversight Committee about leaked documents related to whistleblower ATF Agent John Dodson.

“Congressional investigators later determined that the individual who was behind the leaked documents was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Dennis Burke–the Obama Administration political appointee who led the office in charge of Operation Fast and Furious,” said Issa’s May 3 Oversight Committee memo.

“Burke later testified that the reporter contacted him, and that he believed the reporter had already seen the documents or had them read to him from someone else in the Department of Justice. Instead of e-mailing the documents to the reporter in Washington, Burke, who was in Arizona at the time, e-mailed them to a friend of his in Washington, who then printed out the documents and then delivered them to the reporter personally,” Issa said in his May 3 memo. “These efforts successfully kept Burke’s fingerprints off of the leak until he publicly admitted his role more than two months after his August 2011 resignation as blame for Fast and Furious spread.”

On Aug. 18, 2011, House Oversight Committee staff interviewed Burke. They asked him: “To your knowledge as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, did the highest levels of the Department of Justice authorize [the] non-interdiction of weapons, cutting off of surveillance, as an investigative tactic in Operation Fast and Furious?”

Burke responded, “I have no knowledge of that.”

The committee also asked, “Did you ever authorize those tactics?”

Burke answered, “No.”

During that same Aug. 18, 2011 interview, the committee staff asked Burke: “And did anyone ever—from the Department of Justice, Main Justice I will call it–ever tell you that you were authorized to allow weapons to cross the border when you otherwise would have had a legal authority to seize or interdict them because they were a suspected straw purchase or it was suspected that they were being trafficked in a firearms scheme?”

Burke answered, “I have no recollection of ever being told that.”

Twelve days after this interview, on Aug. 30, 2011, Burke resigned as U.S. attorney. Burke’s assistant U.S. attorney, Emory Hurley, the lead prosecutor in Operation Fast and Furious, also resigned, as did ATF Director Melson.

During an Oct. 19, 2011 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley asked Burke’s old boss, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, “Have you had any communications with Mr. Burke about Operation Fast and Furious?”

Napolitano said, “No.”

Grassley followed up: “So you then obviously didn’t talk to him, anything about Agent Terry’s death?”

Napolitano said that after Agent Terry was killed, “I went to Arizona a few days thereafter to meet with the FBI agents and the assistant U.S. attorneys who were actually going to look for the shooters. At that time, nobody had done the forensics on the guns and ‘Fast and Furious’ was not mentioned. But I wanted to be sure that those responsible for his death were brought to justice, and that every DOJ resource was being brought to bear on that topic. So I did have conversations in–it would have been December of ’09 [actually 2010]–about the murder of Agent Terry. But at that point in time, there, nobody knew about Fast and Furious.”

It was not until Dec. 2, 2011 that the Justice Department withdrew its Feb. 4, 2011 letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Grassley in which DOJ had denied that gun-walking had occurred.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed about 100,000 documents from the Department of Justice. The department has produced about 7,600 documents. The committee believes that is insufficient.

Last week, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted on a resolution of contempt against Attorney General Holder for withholding documents that the committee has subpoenaed.

Just hours before the vote, on June 20, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified the committee that President Barack Obama was invoking executive privilege to deny the committee access to the documents.

On June 28, the full House of Representatives voted, 256-67, with 17 Democrats joining the Republican majority, to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to release the documents requested by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. should be posted on the walls of every Post Office in the land. Most wanted criminals of all time.

UN ATT UPDATE: ATT Stalls on Palestinian Issue, US Lawmakers saying “NO” to ATT

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

ATT Stalls

A dispute over the status of the Palestinian delegation delayed the official start of negotiations, which are now set to begin in New York on Tuesday. Some countries have called for a quick agreement; however, others have major reservations about the ATT.

US Lawmakers Saying “NO” to ATT

More than 130 Congressmen, signed a letter sent to President Barack Obama Monday expressing their opposition to a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty if it violates U.S. gun owner rights and sovereignty in any way.

Click here to view the letter.

 

 

‘CONTEMPT VOTE AGAINST HOLDER NECESSARY FOR JUSTICE,’ SAYS CCRKBA

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

Original Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

The historic 255-67 vote by the House of Representatives to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents relating to the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious was “necessary for justice to be served,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

Holder repeatedly did not comply with a subpoena issued last October by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Instead, he successfully appealed to President Barack Obama to claim executive privilege at the last minute in an attempt to shield the documents from Congressional review.

“As the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the nation, the attorney general is not above the law,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb declared. “It should not have come to this. Eric Holder should have complied with the subpoena. If he had cooperated fully with the Fast and Furious investigation from the outset, none of this would have been necessary and he knows it.

“The only conceivable reason that Holder and the Obama administration do not want to turn these documents over,” he said, “is that they contain damning evidence of either incompetence or complicity, or both.

“We are disappointed, but not surprised,” Gottlieb continued, “that Holder’s Democrat cheerleaders tried to portray this as a witch hunt, and tried to blame the Bush administration, but their arguments do not wash. This is about the rule of law and finding the truth about a horribly mis-managed gun trafficking operation, the murder of an American Border Patrol agent and what appears to have been a cover-up by the Department of Justice.”

CCRKBA had urged gun owners to contact their congressional representatives in support of the contempt vote.

“We are proud,” Gottlieb noted, “of the 17 Democrats who joined the Republican majority on this vote. This was not about partisanship, but accountability and transparency. Fast and Furious has a body count, and so long as people provide cover to the attorney general, the blood is on their hands.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

VIDEO: Alan Gottlieb of IAPCAR Speaks out Against New Italian Gun Law

Monday, June 25th, 2012

Alan Gottlieb, Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation and co-founder of IAPCAR issues a message:  IACAR and FISAT stand strongly in opposition against law 79/2012 in Italy.

VIDEO: Misfiring on Gun Safety (CANADA)

Monday, June 25th, 2012

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”]

Get Adobe Flash player

[/kml_flashembed]

Jerry Agar looks at why criminals will continue breaking laws, so increased gun regulations are not the answer.

UN Arms Trade Treaty – Targeting U.S. Guns as a Cure-All for Global Violence?

Monday, June 25th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  AMMO LAND

New York, NY –-(Ammoland.com)- In a matter of days, officials and activists will descend upon the U.N. in NYC to create a finished version of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The stated goal of an ATT has always been to reduce weapons-related violence by controlling the global trade in arms.

The Treaty will never accomplish that laudable goal. It will succeed only in strengthening the power of thieves and tyrants.

Proponents of the ATT will likely accept any treaty at all —weak or strong— in order to have something for President Obama to sign. Obama’s signature is their goal, and they will beg, intimidate and lie shamelessly in order to set to paper an ATT prior to his departure from office, and obtain that essential scrawl.

As it now stands, in order for an ATT to be accepted, there is a requirement for unanimous agreement for the Treaty’s provisions, which was the only way to get States to agree to enter into negotiations. Therefore, the primary goal of the weapons-prohibitionists is to change the meaning of the word “consensus.”

A February 2012 ControlArms briefing paper urged participating States to “Define consensus in line with most common U.N. practice in a way that does not give every country veto power, but rather only requires ‘wide agreement’ on the final treaty text.”

Don’t Forget the Ammo
But since they may not be able to change the meaning at this late date, the weapons-prohibitionists have kept up a barrage of propaganda intended to get their demands heard and enacted. For example, they have been attempting to get ammunition covered by the Treaty in order to eliminate the crucial component of small arms.

  • In 2011, Hilde Wallacher an anti-gun researcher, whose focus is on the international arms trade, complained: “attempting to exclude any type of small arms ammunition will cause significant loopholes to the treaty, and leave it significantly weakened in its ability to prevent arms transfers that risks contributing to human rights violations or other humanitarian problems.”
  • A May 2012 Oxfam paper stated the obvious: “Guns are useless without bullets….”
  • And a UNIDIR (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research) paper commented that “while some states may have legitimate concerns about including ammunition in an ATT, ultimately there is no compelling reason for its exclusion.”

However, there is no point of including ammunition in an ATT, since about 50% of the world’s countries produce arms and ammunition, and can supply themselves regardless of any global restrictions.

What such an inclusion of ammunition into the treaty will do is mandate laws for the use of special markers known as “taggants.”  These taggants are added to the round’s powder, and they are used to identify the place of manufacture, just like a serial number. The use of such taggants will increase the price of ammunition, and will increase the difficulty of lawful acquisition of ammunition and components by civilians. But an even greater issue with these are the danger of creating ammunition with both too much or too little powder, as the taggants will change the powder weight and volume density, thus greatly affecting the quality of the ammunition and its accuracy. And this leads to possibilities of all kinds of personal injuries or even deaths—to the shooter and innocent bystanders if the barrel should blow up because the pressure of a round is higher than a firearm can withstand, and to the intended target (e.g. rapist or other violent perpetrator) by impairing the accuracy of the firearm, and where that bullet will end up.

Guns Impeding Economic Development
Lately, we’ve been hearing of a push to incorporate the concept of “development” into the Treaty. For example, a UNIDIR paper stated: “An ATT with strong criteria will help establish the necessary security conditions for economic and social development to flourish, while helping to stem the flow of arms that has prevented such progress in the past.”

This recent “concern—impeded development by the mere presence of firearms— is an indication of the degree of frustration felt by proponents of a strong Treaty. Since they are unable to control tyrants directly, they need to blame weapons for the lack of social and economic development seen in many countries. Yet despite years of futile attempts to control weapons and weapons-related violence, they have failed. So they changed strategy to push for a global, legally binding treaty that —they hope— will finally lead to some relief from the ills of the world.

What they will discover, instead, is that a treaty attempting to control weapons will never control tyrants or violence, or lead to productive human development.

However, this factoid —that the presence of arms impedes development— was put to rest in a paper published in a 2005 issue of Engage, by David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, entitled “Does the Right to Arms Impede or Promote Economic Development?”

The paper’s authors show how and why a corrupt dictatorial government is a much better explanation for the failure of development than the presence of weapons:

At the simplest level, there is an obvious connection between SALW and underdevelopment: SALW are among the weapons used in war. Although wartime can be a period of economic development in countries which are producing goods for the war…it is rare for countries where combat is taking place to advance economically during the fighting….Blaming SALW for development failure serves several political purposes.

The rhetoric attempts to enlist the development community in the arms prohibition movement, and even to divert development funds into arms confiscation projects….We suggest instead that corrupt and dictatorial government is a better explanation of underdevelopment….The 2004 annual report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) highlights the manmade tragedy of underdevelopment: “Chronic hunger plagues 852 million people worldwide…Hunger and malnutrition cause tremendous human suffering, kill more than five million children every year, and cost developing countries billions of dollars in lost productivity and national income”….The governments which keep their victim populations hungry and diseased are the true obstacles to development.

Empowering victim populations is an essential precondition to development, and disarming victim populations, leaving them helpless against tyrants, simply makes things worse.

Doomed To Fail, Just Not In The USA
It should be obvious by now that an ATT is doomed to fail, because the only States which will abide by its terms are those States which are law-abiding in the first place. Those States governed by dictators and human rights abusers may sign onto an Arms Trade Treaty, but are not likely to obey its terms, placing the U.S. in a much more vulnerable position than before the Treaty was enacted.

Ted Bromund, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and an expert on ATT affairs, summed it up when he cautioned in his June 4, 2012 issue brief, “The Risks the Arms Trade Treaty Poses to the Sovereignty of the United States”:

All treaties impose limits on U.S. freedom of action….But the ATT will effectively bind only the democracies that accept it. The failure of other states to live up to their commitments under the ATT will not cause its restrictions on the U.S. to lapse. In a world of states that do not respect human rights, a universal treaty based on the vague and wide-ranging human rights criteria that the ATT will seek to apply to arms transfers will always apply with more force to the law-abiding [e.g. the U.S.] than it does to the lawless. It will always be used by the naïve and the evil to apply the powerful weapon of shame against those with a deeply ingrained respect for the rule of law.

About the authors:
Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice optometry and dentistry, respectively, on Long Island, NY, and have collaborated on firearm politics for the past 20 years. They have also collaborated with David B. Kopel since 2000, and are Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, where Kopel is Research Director. Most recently, Gallant and Eisen have also written with Alan J. Chwick. Sherry Gallant has been instrumental in the editing of virtually all of the authors’ writings, and is immensely knowledgeable in the area of firearm politics; she actively co-authored this article. Almost all of the co-authored writings of Gallant, Eisen, Kopel and Chwick can be found at http://gallanteisen.incnf.org, which contains more detailed information about their biographies and writing, and contains hyperlinks to many of their articles. Their recent series focusing on the Arms Trade Treaty can be found primarily at http://gwg.incnf.org . Respective E-Mail addresses are:

PaulGallant2A@verizon.net, JoanneDEisen@cs.com,  AJChwick@iNCNF.org, Sherry.Gallant@gmail.com

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/06/25/un-arms-trade-treaty-targeting-u-s-guns/#ixzz1yprUdnuJ

The push for micro-stamping is really a push for national gun registration

Friday, June 22nd, 2012

Original Story VIA:  The Daily Caller

By AWR Hawkins, Ph.D.

Like a storm that returns stronger each time, efforts to push micro-stamping regulations onto gun-owning Americas are here again. And this time around, The New York Times is pushing it, Time magazine is pushing it and other outlets of the same political persuasion are doing their level best to show us how micro-stamping the firing pins in our firearms could reduce crime by miraculous levels overnight.

Of course, they don’t mention the gun registration, the new powers of gun taxation or the all-out gun bans associated with the scheme. Nor are they bothered with another major sticking point — micro-stamping doesn’t really work.

Micro-stamping is a way of imbedding a specific mark on the end of a firing pin so that when it strikes the primer of a bullet casing, it leaves a micro-stamp that allows police to trace spent shells back to the guns that fired them. In theory, it’s literally like putting a fingerprint on each shell casing fired. Yet ours is not a theoretical world, but a real one. And in the real world there are serious problems with this proposition.

Number one, the passage of micro-stamping legislation would require us not only to have a government-issued firing pin for each gun we own, but would also force us to list every gun we own with the government so bureaucrats can keep a list of which firing pin is in which weapon. Enter gun registration.

Number two, upon sending our weapons in or even taking them to a special, government-certified gunsmith for the micro-stamped firing pin to be added, we’d have to pay a per-gun fee. With a straight face, Time magazine contributor Adam Cohen predicts the cost for this would be between 50¢ and $6 a gun, while The New York Times pegs the cost at $12 a gun. But what both of these outlets fail to recognize is that a new “fee” to the government, regardless of how small, is nothing more than a new tax placed upon the people. Thus micro-stamping will lead to yet one more tax that gun owners must pay in order to exercise the right that “shall not be infringed.”

By the way, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has compiled data to show the cost for retrofitting a micro-stamped firing pin would be $200-plus for each gun. (Nothing is ever cheap when the government is involved.)

And what are we to do about revolvers which don’t leave shell casings behind to begin with? For instance, if someone commits a crime with a .38 Special revolver, how is a micro-stamp on the firing pin or hammer of the gun going to contribute to solving a crime?

Answer — it’s not.

So, to those who dreamed up micro-stamping to begin with, it will probably make sense to ban guns that can’t be traced via an imbedded mark on the firing pin or hammer. Seen in this light, micro-stamping opens the door for myriad guns bans and limitations.

Lastly, it’s important to note that micro-stamping doesn’t work, at least not all the time. There are proven problems with both the durability of the micro-stamps upon the firing pins and the legibility of the marks those firing pins leave on the primer of a bullet casing.

The bottom line: Micro-stamping is just another way for anti-gun bureaucrats to reach into our closets, guns safes and glove compartments to find our guns and register them, to tax us for owning them and to ban those that don’t fit their micro-stamping ideal.

The fact that the entire micro-stamping scheme has been flawed from the start will be no hindrance to these gun-grabbers once the legislative hurdle is cleared.

AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/the-push-for-micro-stamping-is-really-a-push-for-national-gun-registration/#ixzz1yYocfyk6

VIDEO: Senator Jerry Moran on the UN ATT

Friday, June 22nd, 2012

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”]

Get Adobe Flash player

[/kml_flashembed]

 

 

Analysis: House Vote on Holder Contempt Only Part of Dilemma

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

Original Story VIA:  TheGunMag.com

The full House of Representatives may vote on whether to cite Attorney General Eric Holder for Contempt of Congress sometime during the final week of June, but now that President Barack Obama has asserted executive privilege over subpoenaed documents, it appears a confrontation is imminent between Congress and the White House.

Holder asked the president for executive privilege protection after he met with Congressman Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley June 19.  Fireworks erupted when Holder, after suggesting he might provide some documents to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, instead only offered Issa and Grassley a briefing on what is in the documents in exchange for an end to the contempt proceeding. Both Issa and Grassley said that offer was a non-starter. They wanted the documents.

The president’s last-minute leap into the middle of the Operation Fast and Furious is seen by some observers as a well-timed strategic move to bog down the investigation – and prevent further revelations that may be embarrassing to the White House – until after the November election. Critics including Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Indiana Congressman Dan Burton have questioned what may be in the documents that President Obama doesn’t want the public to see.

After all, as noted by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) during the heated committee debate, if there is nothing in those documents to link the White House directly to the scandal, then why claim privilege?

In an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, Issa put it bluntly: “We were asked to take a pig in a poke…I think they knew we couldn’t accept that. Brian Terry’s family couldn’t accept that. The American people couldn’t accept that.”

Just 45 minutes before the Oversight Committee began debate on the contempt citation June 20, Issa received notification that the White House had invoked executive privilege on the subpoenaed documents. That announcement ignited a firestorm in the committee, and across the airwaves as debate erupted between Obama administration defenders and those demanding full disclosure on the gun walking operation.

Democrats seemed to quickly retreat to the “Bush did it” defense, noting that former President George W. Bush invoked executive privilege at least a half-dozen times during his administration. Republicans quickly dredged up an embarrassing video of then-Sen. Obama blasting Bush during a March 19, 2007 interview with CNN’s Larry King for claiming executive privilege.

“There’s been a tendency on the part of this administration,” Obama said at the time, “to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky taking place. The administration would be best served by coming clean on this.”

The Oversight Committee’s 23-17 vote was split rigidly along party lines, with Democrats circling the wagons around Holder and the president’s executive privilege claim.

Still, the documents remain out of reach for the committee, and that is troubling.

For 18 months since Grassley launched the initial Fast and Furious probe to find out how guns from Fast and Furious wound up at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, the White House had insisted it had no prior knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious, and did not approve it. By taking that position, the White House was able to keep some distance between the scandal and the Oval Office.

By raising the stakes with executive privilege, the president inserted himself right into the middle of the controversy. That surprised many people, because it elevated the dispute between Issa and Holder over the Fast and Furious documents to the highest level possible, and opened the door to speculation that there must be something in those documents that could cause considerable embarrassment to Holder, or even the president. But until the documents are actually read, nobody could know that for sure.

Gowdy, in an interview one day after the Oversight Committee vote, told Fox News that, “There’s something in those documents that the Department of Justice or the White House doesn’t want us to have.”

“I don’t know who they’re protecting or what they’re protecting,” Gowdy said.

He suggested that Obama and Holder might be trying to provide cover for Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s criminal division.

“His fingerprints are all over Fast and Furious,” Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, stated.

House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Kantor held out some hope that a crisis could be avoided if the attorney general provided an acceptable compromise prior to a contempt vote by the full House. However, the odds of a compromise get lower as the clock ticks down to the House vote.

CCRKBA SAYS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ‘TRYING TO HIDE BLOOD ON HANDS’

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

BELLEVUE, WA – President Obama’s claim of executive privilege to prevent Congressional access to documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious smacks of monumental hypocrisy and looks like an attempt to cover blood on the administration’s hands, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

It did not prevent the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from voting 23-17 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

In a March 2007 interview with Larry King on CNN, then-Senator Barack Obama complained about a ‘tendency’ on the part of the Bush administration to ‘hide behind executive privilege’,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb recalled. “Now we must find out what is in those documents that the White House wants to hide from the American public.”

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been investigating Fast and Furious since March 2011. Guns linked to the operation are also linked to the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and untold numbers of Mexican citizens.

“Today’s action by the White House creates the strong suspicion that the Obama administration is trying to hide from the fact that they have blood on their hands,” Gottlieb observed. “That’s not rhetoric; we’re talking about the deaths of countless Mexican citizens and especially a dead federal officer. Fast and Furious has given us a verifiable body count.

“There is evidence that those involved in Fast and Furious thought it could bolster calls for additional gun control,” Gottlieb said. “If that’s accurate, it demonstrates a callousness that goes beyond the limits of human decency. It is imperative that that the American public knows all the facts of this case prior to the election. The people responsible for this disaster must be held accountable, and that will not happen so long as the administration continues to stonewall, and hiding behind executive privilege suggests that Holder and the president have no intention of coming clean.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

DISHONEST HUMANITARIANISM? The invalid assumptions behind the United Nations’ small arms control initiatives

Thursday, June 14th, 2012

DISHONEST HUMANITARIANISM? The invalid assumptions behind the United Nations’ small arms control initiative

By Jeff Moran

Next month diplomats from the world over will converge at the United Nations in New York to formally negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This is the culmination of over a decade of humanitarian advocacy and pre‐negotiations inside and outside the United Nations. It’s part of a larger global effort kick‐started in 2001 with the passage of a non‐legally binding resolution by the UN General Assembly. This resolution was called the “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” (PoA).(1) This led to the creation of many initiatives, the most visible and contentious of which has been the ATT.

The ATT process formally got underway with two subsequent UN resolutions lead by the United Kingdom and is still Chaired by Argentine Ambassador Roberto Moritán. In 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 entitled “Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”(2) This resolution enabled the UK and like‐minded countries to assemble experts to assess the feasibility of formally launching an ATT negotiation process. Then, in 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 64/48, entitled “The Arms Trade Treaty,” which established a schedule for pre‐negotiation meetings (known as Preparatory Committees, or PrepComs) resulting in a final Diplomatic Conference in July 2012.(3)

The goal of the ATT is to “to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms.”(4) The scope is likely to include everything from helicopters to hand grenades, from tanks to target pistols and ammunition. It is hoped by humanitarians that a legally binding UN ATT championed by like‐minded states could be shaped to complement the merely politically‐binding 2001 UN PoA.

While all this treaty advocacy was going on, many of the same actors adopted a more discreet approach to binding international law for small arms and ammunition. Rather than just pursue their ambitious goals through a treaty out in the open, they also quietly started developing small arms control standards and customs. An example of this is the UN CASA (Coordinating Action on Small Arms) project, which is overseen by the UN’s Office of Disarmament Affairs.(5) UN CASA is euphemistically described as the “small arms coordination mechanism within the UN” to “frame the small arms issue in all its aspects, making use of development, crime, terrorism, human rights, gender, youth, health and humanitarian insights.”(6) In practice this organization is like a lawmaking committee or agency, but not nearly as accountable.

In 2008, CASA launched what they themselves described as “an ambitious initiative to develop a set of International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS).”(7) UN CASA’s ISACS project includes eighteen mostly small and developing countries (none of them permanent security council members), fifteen international, regional and sub‐regional organizations, 33 humanitarian civil society groups, 23 other UN bodies, and just one Belgian firearms company, and one Italian national sporting arms and ammunition industry association.(8)

Ultimately, UN CASA’s ISACS initiative will eventually result in customary international law. Customary international law is the result of international administrative rule making which acquires the same weight as treaty law over time. States can be bound by customary international law regardless of whether the states have codified these laws domestically. Along with general principles of law and treaties, customary law is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.(9)

Truth be told, the UN’s PoA, the ATT, and CASA ISACS are predicated on false assumptions regarding small arms and ammunition. The two most important of which I will discuss here. Both of these assumptions are generally false in view of recent statistical studies and published scholarship.

The first assumption is that proliferation of small arms is a universal threat to human security, or, alternatively, that greater availability of small arms means more gun deaths in a given society. This is best quoted by the Geneva‐based Small Arms Survey (SAS), a special interest research group funded by various United Nations organizations, and other countries advocating stricter small arms controls.(10) The SAS officially states that the driving assumption behind all their research is the unqualified universal idea that “proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security.”(11) In fact, Nicholas Florquin, a senior researcher at SAS, started his talk during a two day seminar on Small Arms and Human Security in November 2011 with a stronger statement that, “proliferation of small arms causes problems” for humanity. (12)

Clearly, the small arms situation in some places may indeed be threatening to human security. But proliferation, i.e. the distribution of arms or expanding private ownership of arms, is not intrinsically a bad thing for everyone everywhere, especially in an ordered society. Proliferation, in fact, can be a force for good even in a disordered societal situation.

The American experience alone invalidates the global causative relationship between small arms proliferation and human insecurity. For example, trend data over the past nearly 20 years shows the US has been experiencing a phenomenal 35% decline in the number of gun deaths, even more in per‐capita terms.(13) This is part of a long term general trend in lower criminality. Over the same period firearms‐related suicides per 100,000 people declined by nearly 20%, the population grew over 20%, gun availability spiked (firearms sales boomed while statistically insignificant numbers of guns were bought back or otherwise destroyed), and, in 2011, indicators of national gun ownership rates increased to their highest level since 1993.(14,15) In other words, what we see in the US is the flipside of the assumption, that proliferation of small arms coincides with less gun violence. While this situation doesn’t necessarily mean more guns causes less gun violence, it does mean that the “more guns means more violence” assumption is simply not valid.

The French experience arming revolutionaries abroad invalidates the moral aspect of this first assumption, that proliferation is intrinsically bad. In fact, France alone has shown there can be a democratic and human rights upside of small arms proliferation. Have humanitarian campaigners forgotten that France armed liberty‐seeking American revolutionaries against colonial Britain? Are they denying that France also armed liberty‐seeking Libyan revolutionaries last year, and, ultimately, facilitated the demise of a regional dictator and notorious human rights abuser? These experiences prove even legally questionable state‐sponsored small arms proliferation to “insurgents” and “revolutionaries” can actually be a good thing for some societies and their local humanity.

The second assumption is that there is a plague of international illegal weapons trafficking threatening humanity everywhere. In fact, Rachel Stohl, the long‐time private consultant and insider working directly for Ambassador Moritán managing the ATT processes, has even published that “Without a doubt, it is the illegal arms trade and its various actors, agents, causes and consequences that capture our attention and motivate our action.”(16)

New research suggests the problem of illicit international trade in arms is not nearly as bad as first hypothesized over 10 years ago. Humanitarian campaigners’ evidence about the vast size, global scope, and cataclysmic impact of international illicit trafficking simply does not exist. Granted, it’s hard to quantify such illegal activity. Nontheless, the assertion that illicit international small arms trafficking is a major problem for the world has in fact been disproven over 10 years of progressively improved knowledge on the topic by academics and specialist researchers.(17)

To this day, however, the UN still claims on its Office of Disarmament Affairs website that international trafficking is a “worldwide scourge,” and that it “wreaks havoc everywhere.”(18) Campaigners, and their UN organizational sympathizers, must embrace the truth and acknowledge that the world is NOT actually suffering from a scourge of illegal international arms trafficking everywhere. At best, some failed or fragile states, conflict or post‐conflict regions may be suffering from illegal trafficking, but even this is of dubious importance ranked against other concerns like local diversion of small arms from government arsenals. Deaths and violence by small arms and light weapons are, on the whole, symptomatic of more local causes rooted within societies, and not cross‐border transfers.

The inconvenient truth today for humanitarian campaigners for international small arms controls is that for most countries around the globe, even for most developing or fragile states, a combination of deficient domestic regulation of legal firearms possession with theft, and loss or corrupt sale from official inventories is a more serious problem than illicit trafficking across borders.(19) The much touted scourge of illicit trade in small arms must be recognized, therefore, as hyperbolic humanitarian catastrophizing, or as we say in business, “marketing hype.”

In conclusion, while hyping of the size, scope, and impact of the illicit aspects of the arms trade was a de facto condition for first building consensus and momentum for the PoA, the ATT, and programs like CASA ISACS, continuing to do so presents serious reputational risk.(20) Continuing to assert that proliferation of small arms in society is intrinsically a bad thing for humanity presents serious reputational risk as well. Ultimately, such apparent dishonestly in the pursuit of otherwise admirable humanitarian goals raises questions about hidden agendas, institutional credibility, integrity, and organizational subject matter expertise. If the UN and humanitarian organizations really want to promote human security around the globe, honesty is still the best policy.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jeff Moran, a Principal at TSM Worldwide LLC, is a business consultant specializing in the international defense & security industry. He studies negotiations & policy‐making at the Executive Masters Program of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. Previously Mr. Moran was a strategic marketing leader for a multi‐billion dollar unit of a public defense & aerospace company, a military diplomat, and a nationally ranked competitive rifle shooter. Jeff Moran has an MBA from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School and a BSFS degree from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service

© 2012. Jeff Moran and TSM Worldwide LLC. All Rights Reserved. Distribution and republication are authorized when Jeff Moran and URL are referenced. http://tsmworldwide.com/dishonest‐humanitarianism/  DISHONEST HUMANITARIANISM? The invalid assumptions behind the United Nations small arms control initiatives.

 

END NOTE

1 http://www.poa‐iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx

2 http://daccess‐dds‐ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/499/77/PDF/N0649977.pdf

3 http://daccess‐dds‐ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/464/71/PDF/N0946471.pdf

4 Ibid.

5 http://www.poa‐iss.org/CASA/CASA.aspx, http://www.un‐casa.org

6 http://www.poa‐iss.org/CASA/CASA.aspx

7 http://www.un‐casa‐isacs.org/isacs/Welcome.html

8 http://www.un‐casa‐isacs.org/isacs/Partners.html

9 http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/intl/imc/imcothersourcesguide.html, http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=/epil/entries/law‐9780199231690‐e1393&recno=29&, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law

10 Small Arms Survey, established in 1999, is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and by sustained contributions from the Governments of Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Survey is also grateful for past and current project support received from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States, as well as from different United Nations agencies, programs, and institutes.

11 http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about‐us/mission.html

12 November 4, 2011. This author was a note‐taker and participant in this seminar, which was hosted by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

13 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html.

14 http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self‐reported‐gun‐ownership‐highest‐1993.aspx?version=print

15 http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

16 Rachel Stohl and Susan Grillot. The International Arms Trade. Polity Press: 2009. P. 93

17 Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh, eds. Small Arms, Crime and Conflict: Global Governance and the Threat of Armed Violence. Routledge: 2012. P. 90.

18 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2010/dc3247.doc.htm.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

19 Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh, eds. P. 91.

20 Anna Stavrianakis. Taking Aim At the Arms Trade: NGOs, global civil society, and the other world military order. Zed Publishing Ltd: 2010. P. 143‐4S

 

IAPCAR Featured in July Gun Trade World

Thursday, June 14th, 2012

Click here to view article:  IAPCAR GunTradeWorld Article

 

Arms Trade Treaty Risks Increasing the Threat of Armed Terrorism

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

Report VIA:  The Heritage Foundation

By
June 5, 2012

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be negotiated at a conference held July 2–27 in New York. The ATT purports to seek, in part, to reduce the ability of terrorists to acquire conventional weapons. But as the U.N. has not defined terrorism, it is at best unclear how the ATT will achieve this aim. Moreover, if the U.N. negotiations follow precedent, the ATT will include a clause that legitimates the supply of arms to terrorists.

Terrorism Frequently Cited as a Reason to Negotiate an ATT

The ATT has never focused exclusively on terrorism, but the U.N. General Assembly and influential U.N. member states have frequently asserted that one reason to negotiate an ATT is to reduce terrorists’ ability to acquire conventional weapons. For example, the most recent substantive resolution in the U.N. General Assembly on the ATT, Resolution 64/48, adopted on January 12, 2010, states that “problems relating to the unregulated trade in conventional weapons…can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism.” In his April 16, 2012, statement of “Positions for the United States in the Upcoming Arms Trade Treaty Conference,” Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman said that an ATT would “help prevent the acquisition of arms by terrorists and criminals.”

The U.N. Has Never Defined Terrorism

It would, therefore, be logical to assume that the U.N. has a definition of terrorism that will apply in the context of the ATT. But the U.N. has never adopted a definition of terrorism.

In the run-up to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “called again for the creation of an international antiterror accord,” which “has been stymied by disagreements over what acts and which groups should be labeled as terroristic.” The Chairman of the U.N. Counterterrorism Implementation Task Force, Robert Orr, noted, “Legally, international law covers almost everything that you would want it to cover…. [but] if someone is accusing someone else of engaging in terrorist activities, there’s no clinical definition of whether they are or not.”[1] The ATT cannot prevent nations from arming terrorists if nations do not agree on who the terrorists are, or on what constitutes terrorism.

U.N. Security Council Has Already Addressed This Question

The U.N.’s inability to define terrorism has not prevented it from taking action in the past. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, passed unanimously on September 28, 2001, in the wake of 9/11, already requires all U.N. members to take wide-ranging actions against terrorism, including “eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists.” The council is supposedly responsible for maintaining international peace and security, and, under Chapter 5 of the U.N. Charter, has the power to back up its resolutions with armed force. The ATT, by contrast, will be based on national implementation and will not fall under Chapter 5. It will have less authority than Resolution 1373, and yet it is supposed to succeed where that resolution has palpably failed.

Relevant U.N. Declarations Regularly Legitimate Terrorism

At best, then, the ATT would have no effect on terrorism. But it could easily increase the risk of armed terrorism. U.N. declarations regularly contain a clause to the effect that the U.N. recognizes:

the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and…the rights of peoples to take legitimate action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to realize their inalienable right of self-determination.

This quotation comes from the Chairman’s Draft Paper, the closest equivalent to a draft ATT currently available.[2] But it is also part of many other U.N. declarations. For example, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, produced by the U.N. World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, contains a nearly identical statement.[3] As it is also included in the ATT’s precursor, the 2001 U.N. “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,” the precedent for its incorporation into the ATT has been clearly established.[4]

Those new to the U.N. system may not realize the meaning of this clause. It was originally intended by African nationalists to refer to the European colonial empires, and by Islamic nations to refer to the Palestinians (“peoples under…foreign occupation”). The African context has faded, but the coded reference to Israel—and to India, because of its dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir—has endured. In recent years, the clause has also come to be understood as a reference to the U.S. and allied presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. The entire clause, therefore, recognizes the supposed right of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations—in the name of pursuing the “inalienable right of self-determination”—to attack Israel, India, the U.S., and its allies.

ATT Risks Becoming a “Get Out of Jail Free” Card for Terrorism’s Backers

An ATT that contains this clause would give any nation that wishes to assist a terrorist organization a “get out of jail free” card. If confronted by the U.S. with the claim that their supply of weapons to terrorists constituted a violation of the ATT, they could simply reply that the ATT had recognized the right of all peoples to realize their self-determination, and that the terrorists in question represented peoples who were engaged in an armed struggle with a nation that did not respect this right. This is why the U.N. has never been able to define terrorism: Too many U.N. member states argue that what the U.S. describes as terrorism is a legitimate struggle for self-determination.

Efforts to define terrorism have been blocked by the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which contains 56 U.N. member states and has successfully prevented the development of any definition that would apply, for example, to the terrorist organizations that attack Israel. The OIC Charter, adopted in 2008, notes that it is dedicated to supporting “the struggle of the Palestinian people, who are presently under foreign occupation.”[5] This is the same phrase that appears regularly in U.N. declarations. Since the ATT is centrally concerned with the transfer of conventional arms, it is particularly important that it does not legitimate the supply of weapons to terrorists. This will be difficult to achieve: The ATT’s supporters want it to be a universal treaty, i.e., one signed and ratified by all U.N. member states, but is unlikely that the OIC members will agree to any ATT that does not include this clause.

What the U.S. Should Do

The U.S. should never sign, and the Senate should never ratify, a treaty containing a clause that legitimates terrorism. In the July negotiations, this should be a red line, and the U.S. should publicly state that it will break consensus on the adoption of the treaty text if any such clause—including one similar to the standard U.N. declaration—appears in it.

The U.S. should also state that an ATT that does not define terrorism cannot hope to have any effect on the ability of terrorists to acquire conventional weapons. It should announce that the only definition of terrorism it can accept is one that is fully compatible with U.S. law, which states that terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”[6] If those who claim to support the ATT in the name of its impact on terrorism cannot accept the need for it to define terrorism, or resist a definition that is compatible with U.S. law, the treaty is not worth negotiating.

Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]“U.N. Chief Urges Creation of International Pact Against Terrorism,” Global Security Newswire, September 9, 2011, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/un-chief-urges-creation-of-international-pact-against-terrorism/ (accessed June 4, 2012).

[2]“Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty,” U.N. General Assembly, March 7, 2012, http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/Documents/PrepCom4%20Documents/PrepCom%20Report_E_20120307.pdf (accessed June 4, 2012).

[3]“Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,” U.N. General Assembly, July 12, 1993, http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/%28symbol%29/a.conf.157.23.en (accessed June 4, 2012).

[4]“Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,” United Nations, 2001, http://www.poa-iss.org/PoA/poahtml.aspx (accessed June 4, 2012). For more on the program, see Ted R. Bromund and David Kopel, “As the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty Process Begins, U.N.’s ‘Programme of Action’ on Small Arms Shows Its Dangers,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2969, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/as-the-uns-arms-trade-treaty-process-begins-uns-programme-of-action-on-small-arms-shows-its-dangers.

[5]Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, “OIC Charter,” March 14, 2008, http://www.oic-oci.org/page_detail.asp?p_id=53 (accessed June 4, 2012). See also the definition offered by the OIC in 2002, in “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee Established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996,” United Nations, 2002.

[6]“Terrorism Definitions,” National Counterterrorism Center, August 27, 2010, http://www.nctc.gov/site/other/definitions.html (accessed June 4, 2012).

UN Arms Trade Treaty may put Taiwan at risk

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  THE TAIPEI TIMES

LOOPHOLES: Academics speculated that China might use the UN Arms Trade Treaty to claim that the US sale of weapons to Taiwan violated the treaty’s terms.

Washington-based academics are warning US President Barack Obama not to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) because it could make it more difficult to sell weapons to Taiwan.

The treaty is to be negotiated next month in New York.

“The US is obligated by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act [TRA] to make available the hardware and services necessary for Taiwan’s defense,” Heritage Foundation Research Fellows Ted Bromund and Dean Cheng (成斌) wrote.

In a paper published on Friday, Bromund and Cheng said that because Taiwan is not a UN member state — and is not recognized by a majority of UN members — the ATT would not recognize its right to buy or import arms.

“The ATT thus provides the basis for a Chinese argument that US sales of arms to Taiwan would circumvent the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] import control system, violate China’s territorial integrity, and thus violate the treaty,” Bromund and Cheng wrote.

They said the ATT would “very likely” establish a series of criteria that treaty signatories are required to apply to proposed arms transfers. One of these criteria is likely to be that arms transfers should not seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability.

“Since the Chinese Civil War has never been formally concluded, a state of war still exists between Taiwan and the PRC,” Bromund and Cheng said.

They said that this criteria offers the PRC a third argument that the US weapons sales or transfers to Taiwan would violate the terms of the ATT.

Bromund and Cheng said that the ATT poses three distinct threats to the legal obligation of the US to provide for the defense of Taiwan, or to the ability of Taiwan to provide for its own defense.

“A US administration that earnestly wished to fulfill its obligations under the TRA would likely do so, regardless of the ATT,” the academics said.

However, they said a US administration that believed US sales to Taiwan endangered US relations with the PRC, or did not want to sell arms to Taiwan for some other reason, would be able to cite the ATT as a reason not to proceed with those sales.

“Even if the US does not sign or ratify the ATT, US legal scholars who interpret it as customary international law could use it to argue that the US should not proceed with a proposed sale,” Bromund and Cheng said.

They conclude: “The ATT can only raise yet another hurdle to US arms sales to Taiwan.”

Arms sales, like international relations as a whole, are always a matter for judgement. In next month’s negotiations, the US should make it clear that it will not accept any treaty that would impinge on its ability to apply that judgement to its legal obligation to provide for the defense of Taiwan, they said.

“Elected officials have the broader responsibility to make it clear that they recognize the importance of the US commitment to Taiwan, and to stand by that commitment in word and deed,” Bromund and Cheng said.

In Taipei, Director-General of the Department of North American Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bruce Linghu (令狐榮達) said the ministry is aware of the proposed UN treaty and would keep abreast of any developments.

Issues related to the proposed UN treaty have not been placed on the agenda between Taiwan and the US, but the ministry will look into the matter, Linghu said.

 

Greece: Demand for guns up over worries for personal safety

Monday, June 11th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Digital Journal

Desperate times are fueling an unprecedented crime wave in Greece. Criminals are targeting Greek homes and attacking pensioners. Worries over personal safety have fueled the demand for hunting rifles for protection.

Digital Journal recently reported the Greek Citizen Protection Ministry reported “one homicide every two days, 18 robberies every 24 hours and 11 thefts every hour: all this in a country that once enjoyed one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.”

On Wednesday Eleftheros Typos reported two men armed with Kalashnikovs burst into a café before noon, in Melissochori,Thebes. Their intent was to seize the pensions of the elderly. The thieves shot two men, including the postman who was delivering the pensions, before stealing €10,000 and escaping on motorbikes. The two victims were both hospitalized.

In the early hours of Thursday morning Albanian robbers broke into three homes in Paiania. Digital Journal reported the thieves threatened a woman at knife-point in her own home. According to Dimokratia News the home of 55-year-old Kyriakos Davaris, who had just been released from hospital, is surrounded by iron railings. Davaris owns a family taverna in Paiania and his two sons both help him when they are back in the village from their university studies. Locals are incensed at the wave of crime targeting the area where hard working people are turned into victims. In this incident one of the Albanian burglars was shot dead.

In the wake of the Paiania shooting Ekathimerini reports a sharp rise in the number of people asking about hunting rifles. They report they spoke to gun shop owners that related most of the requests for rifles were from people that “were quite open about the fact they wanted the guns for personal safety, not hunting.”

Authorities are concerned that more people may begin to take the law into their own hands in vigilante fashion due to the perceived ineffectiveness of the police.

VIDEO: Global Gun Registry – Canada

Monday, June 4th, 2012

Original Story Via: Sun News Canada

If you thought the Canadian gun registry is bad, how do you feel about a global registry? Brian Lilley and Daniel Proussalidis discuss the UN’s latest brilliant idea.

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

 

Canada flip flops on UN arms trade treaty

Monday, June 4th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  CBC News

Canada has modified its controversial position on a United Nations arms control treaty.

In a new position paper submitted to the UN, the federal government has dropped its proposal to exclude all sporting and hunting firearms from the international Arms Trade Treaty, an agreement that seeks to regulate the import, export and transfer of all conventional weapons.

Last summer Canada surprised many and attracted heaps of scorn from countries such as Nigeria, Brazil, Mexico and Australia, when it changed its stance on the treaty and advocated for the exclusion of so-called “civilian” firearms.

In particular, the Mexicans said that in their experience, a great number of arms confiscated from its notorious gangs are sporting and hunting firearms that have been modified and transformed into assault weapons.

Some non-governmental observers predicted Canada’s new position could have helped derail the entire process.

The proposal to exclude those weapons is absent from Canada’s new position paper, submitted to the UN last month.

Instead, Canada recommends changes to the treaty’s preamble to underline that the agreement “acknowledges and respects responsible and accountable trans-national use of firearms for recreational purposes, such as sport shooting, hunting and other forms of similar lawful activities, whose legitimacy is recognized by the States Parties.”

Change welcomed

Project Ploughshares, which was among the non-governmental organizations that registered its opposition to the exclusion of hunting and sports firearms from the ATT, said it welcomed the changes, calling it a compromise.

“We’re pleased to see that Canada has toned down its call for exemptions on certain classes of firearms and is now calling for preamble language in the treaty that would recognize legitimate uses of firearms,” said Ken Epps, a senior program officers with the group.

Epps said the new document is helpful.

“In fact it will help to clarify that the treaty is not about domestic gun ownership or use or even transfers of firearms within states like Canada.”

Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, is also pleased with the changes.

“We would support this version of the Arms Trade Treaty document from Canada as it empowers independent nations to set their own discretionary policies regarding civilian-owned firearms within their borders.”

Bernardo said his take on the preamble is that Canada does not want “civilian” firearms included within the scope of the treaty.

In its position paper, Canada says it supports the inclusion of small arms, light weapons and ammunition within the ATT, “in keeping with the principle of national discretion.”

Epps said he feels that section needs tightening up, “because national discretion could be another term for states deciding whether or not to implement the treaty and that shouldn’t be up for different interpretations.”

HARD COPY: Letter from anti-gun groups to Obama pressing for a strong UN ATT

Thursday, May 24th, 2012

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LETTER: Anti-Gun UN Arms Trade Treaty Letter to Obama

Or copy paste link into browser:

http://iapcar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Robust-UN-ATT-Letter.pdf

 

Minister calls for support for tough new arms trade treaty

Thursday, May 24th, 2012
Original Story VIA:  Guardian.co.uk

 

Alan Duncan hopes to persuade the US to back the new treaty. He says: ‘Our resolve is clear and we are taking a lead’.

The international arms trade has become the greatest threat to development and has to be controlled by a tough treaty to regulate weapons and munitions sales, a government minister warns.

In a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies thinktank, Alan Duncan, the minister for international development, will urge allies such as the US to set aside their concerns and sign up to the comprehensive arms trade treaty (ATT), which will be hammered out during a month-long negotiation at the UN in July.

Britain has been one of the key supporters of a treaty that could prevent countries selling arms to any regime that might use them to violate human rights.

Speaking to the Guardian, Duncan said: “The arms trade has become the greatest threat to development, beyond disease and disaster. We are making some progress on issues such as polio and malaria.The factor that is most restraining development is conflict, which is why this new treaty is so important. It has massive implications for development.”

The UN conference in July is the culmination of six years’ lobbying and haggling by governments, arms companies and aid agencies. It should lead to a treaty that harmonises and toughens up international laws governing the sale of arms into one comprehensive, legally binding, document.

Oxfam has estimated that the absence of a single binding treaty has allowed at least $2.2bn [£1.38bn] worth of arms and ammunition to be imported under arms embargoes between 2000 and 2010.

At the moment, the new ATT would ban all weapons sales to countries that could use them to abuse human rights, or encourage corruption or armed violence.

Such a treaty might have stopped Syria importing arms in 2010, the year before an uprising brutally suppressed by the Assad regime.

Duncan admitted there would be difficulties defining the banning of arms sales in this way, but insisted it was right to include the concept.

“It is nebulous, but we are in favour of it being there. It will be left to the signatory countries to implement. We are not setting up an international police force. There will be a shared obligation among signatory countries to police the treaty.”

Duncan added that it was essential the ATT included “from fighter planes down to portable weapons, small arms and ammunition”.

He said: “Including the portable weapons is vitally important. It is one of the most dramatic drivers of conflict and development decay. This treaty has to cover the full spectrum of weaponry. Crucially, there will also be a register of brokers, to stop middlemen from being able to dump arms into areas.”

In recent months the US has expressed concern about the treaty being too prescriptive, as have China and Russia.

But Duncan hopes Washington can still be persuaded and ensure there is “a quantum leap forward”. He said: “The US is less enthusiastic than we are, but you never know. If our defence industries can be in favour of this, so can theirs. Our resolve is clear and we are taking a lead.”

The global weapons market is estimated to be worth $55bn, and the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs says: “The trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated.

“No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use.”

In a recent report, Oxfam claimed that in the first decade of this century several states broke embargoes and continued to trade weapons on a large scale. The report cited a list of countries, which included Burma ($600m of trade from 2000 to 2010), Iran ($574m from 2007 to 2010) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo ($124m, 2000 to 2002).

Costa Rican Organization Joins IAPCAR

Thursday, May 17th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Inside Costa Rica

ProDefensa of Costa Rica is the latest organization to join forces with the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), which now boasts 22 affiliated groups in 14 different nations around the globe.

With member groups on every continent, IAPCAR executive director Philip Watson has been elated with the positive response the group has received.

“IAPCAR’s steady growth has been a welcome sign among those that love freedom,” Watson noted, “it proves that people in every corner of the world believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Personal security and the defense of one’s home and family are values shared across international borders, regardless of nationality or ethnic origin.”

“We are very excited to be the newest and proudest member of IAPCAR,” said Pro Defensa’s Miguel Cifuentes.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was instrumental in creating IAPCAR, Gottlieb was pleased to have Pro Defensa as IAPCAR’s newest affiliate.

“We are excited to welcome our friends from Costa Rica,” he observed. “Gun owners in Costa Rica are currently facing some tough regulatory actions on gun registration and severe penalties for improper registration, we can learn a great deal from each other in our effort to protect firearms rights around the world.”

The United Nations prepares to consider an Arms Trade Treaty this July, placing many arms rights groups at odds with global gun control advocates.

“IAPCAR will strongly oppose any UN treaty infringing on national sovereignty or individual gun rights,” noted Julianne Versnel, director of operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, the second influential group instrumental in forming IAPCAR.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (http://iapcar.com ) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to more than 20 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

IAPCAR Says “G’day, Mate” to Australian Gun Rights Group

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Guns.com

The Firearm Owners Association of Australia (FOAA) has joined up with the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

The more the merrier!

When talking guns rights, the thing that we Americans tend to discuss the most is the Second Amendment, and since the US Constitution really only applies to the US (of course) it’s not always clear how other countries handle gun rights. Well, all over the world people want to carry guns to protect their families against threats. Even if the flag they wave looks different, that basic desire will always be present.

The international force for gun rights has just gotten a little bit beefier now that our Aussie buddies have teamed up with IAPCAR. This new addition officially means that IAPCAR has representation from every single continent.

Philip Watson, the Executive Director of IAPCAR, was thrilled about the news, “IAPCAR’s steady growth over the past two years has been gratifying.” Chairman Alan Gottleib of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which has been a central organization in IAPCAR, welcomed “our colleagues from Down Under.”

These increased numbers may give IAPCAR the added influence it needs to oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty coming up this July.

With IAPCAR’s membership now encompassing 21 affiliated groups spread across 12 different nations, it’s only a mere 6.6 billion members away from being able to secure universal gun rights.

IAPCAR WELCOMES COSTA RICAN GUN RIGHTS GROUP

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  TheGunMag.com

BELLEVUE, WA – Pro Defensa of Costa Rica is the latest organization to join forces with the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), which now boasts 22 affiliated groups in 14 different nations around the globe.

With member groups on every continent, IAPCAR executive director Philip Watson has been elated with the positive response the group has received.

“IAPCAR’s steady growth has been a welcome sign among those that love freedom,” Watson noted, “it proves that people in every corner of the world believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Personal security and the defense of one’s home and family are values shared across international borders, regardless of nationality or ethnic origin.”

“We are very excited to be the newest and proudest member of IAPCAR,” said Pro Defensa’s Miguel Cifuentes.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was instrumental in creating IAPCAR, Gottlieb was pleased to have Pro Defensa as IAPCAR’s newest affiliate.

“We are excited to welcome our friends from Costa Rica,” he observed. “Gun owners in Costa Rica are currently facing some tough regulatory actions on gun registration and severe penalties for improper registration, we can learn a great deal from each other in our effort to protect firearms rights around the world.”

The United Nations prepares to consider an Arms Trade Treaty this July, placing many arms rights groups at odds with global gun control advocates. “IAPCAR will strongly oppose any UN treaty infringing on national sovereignty or individual gun rights,” noted Julianne Versnel, director of operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, the second influential gun rights group instrumental in forming IAPCAR.

 

Tasmania: Calls for tighter gun laws as thefts rise

Monday, May 14th, 2012

May 12, 2012

Original Story VIA:  ABC.net.au

There are calls for tougher gun storage laws in Tasmania, with police reporting hundreds of thefts over the past five years.

Police say 760 guns have been stolen since 2008 and there is evidence some are being stolen to order for criminal use.

The Assistant Commissioner Donna Adams said police conducted 800 random checks of licenced gun owners last year to make sure their firearms were properly secured.

“Ensuring that they’re securely retained will hopefully minimise the opportunities for them to be illegally obtained,” Ms Adams said.

The Coalition for Gun Control’s Roland Browne has called for even tougher storage requirements and spot checks.

“There’s something like 60,000 gun owners in Tasmania and 1500 police,” he said.

“It’s a huge job.”

There have been seven drive-by shootings in Tasmania in the past six months but police do not believe they are related to interstate gang turf wars.

Shots were fired at a house in the Launceston suburb of Ravenswood this week and last month a 17-year-old boy suffered serious injuries in a drive-by shooting at his Glenorchy home.

Assistant Police Commissioner Adams said the attacks were not gang-related.

“They’ve actually been the result of feuding parties so they’ve actually been directly targeted at a particular individual,” she said.

About 120,000 firearms are registered in the state.

IAPCAR Welomes Australian Gun Rights Organization

Thursday, May 10th, 2012

Story Via:  TheGunMag.com

BELLEVUE, WA – The Firearms Owners Association of Australia (FOAA) has become the latest organization to join forces with the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), which now boasts 21 affiliated groups in 12 different nations around the globe.

According to IAPCAR Executive Director Philip Watson, the affiliation of one of Australia’s premier firearm owners’ groups with IAPCAR means there is now representation from every continent.

“IAPCAR’s steady growth over the past two years has been gratifying,” Watson noted, “because it proves that firearms owners from every corner of the world believe in their right to keep and bear arms. Personal security and the defense of one’s home and family are values shared across international borders, regardless of an individual’s background or nationality.”

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was instrumental in creating IAPCAR, and he was delighted that FOAA is now affiliated.

“We welcome our colleagues from Down Under,” he observed. “Australian gun owners have had unique experiences over the years with firearms regulations and gun prohibitionists, and we can learn a great deal from each other in our effort to protect firearms rights around the world.”

Timing of the announcement is important, because this boosts the influence of the international gun rights movement as the United Nations prepares to consider an Arms Trade Treaty in July. IAPCAR strongly opposes such a treaty if it infringes on national sovereignty or individual rights, noted Julianne Versnel, director of operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, which was also instrumental in launching IAPCAR.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (www.iapcar.org) is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to more than 20 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.

Jakarta: Stringent gun control ‘could curb trigger-happy incidents’

Monday, May 7th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  The Jakarta Post

Rabby Pramudatama, Jakarta | Mon, 05/07/2012

Tighter gun-controls are being demanded by politicians and activists following a spike in firearm-related violence across the country.

Poengky Indarti, executive director of human rights watchdog Imparsial, urged the government and the House of Representatives to work together to change the firearms policy.

“Both should amend the law on the control of firearms and explosive, audit all firearm possession in the country and strengthen supervision and control,” she said.

Indonesian civilians possessed 17,983 guns in 2010, according to data from Imparsial. Civilians have firearm licenses for self-protection.

Imparsial also found that 11,869 guns are used by the National Police Special Forces, 6,551 for sports and 699 by private security companies.

Between 2005 and 2012, Imparsial recorded 46 cases of guns being misused by members of law enforcement agencies and civilians.

Data from the National Police shows that there were 453 cases of possession of illegal firearms between 2009 to 2011.

Politicians have also weighed into the gun-control debate.

People’s Consultative Assembly deputy speaker Lukman Hakim Saifuddin has called on the police to seize all firearms belonging to civilians, including lawmakers, businessmen and lawyers.

“It’s better to collect all the firearms from the hands of civilians,” he said on Sunday.

He said that social and economic insecurities had made it easier for people to pull the trigger.

“Tempers can easily flare these days, and people can easily overreact over trivial matters,” he said.

The House of Representatives said that it planned to summon National Police Chief Gen. Timur Pradopo for questioning over the rampant use of illegal firearms.

A member of House Commission III overseeing human rights and legal affairs, Sarifuddin Sudding, said the hearing would occur after the recess period wraps up on May 13.

“We will demand National Police chief to give his explanation as to why there are so much gun-related violence recently,” he said.

He suspected that the police had not done enough to monitor gun ownership by civilians.

“How can civilians have easy access to guns and use them in criminal acts?” Sudding said.

Russian Gun Rights Group Joins IAPCAR

Friday, May 4th, 2012

Original Story VIA: TheGunMag.com

BELLEVUE, WA – The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) added Russia’s The Right to Arms as its newest member working to protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms around the globe. Right to Arms joins a coalition of 20 other groups from 11 countries on five different continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian arms rights.

“IAPCAR is quickly expanding as the premier international arms rights organization with groups like Right to Arms as new allies in securing the human right to keep and bear arms,” said IAPCAR executive director, Philip Watson.

“The push for civilian arms rights continues to grow at a fast pace as this week we’ve added ANARMA of Spain and now Right to Arms of Russia as new members.” Watson observed.

“It is a great honor for our group to join IAPCAR,” said Right to Arms chairman Maria Butina. As Russia’s highest profile gun rights advocacy organization, Right to Arms also runs the popular website (http://vooruzhen.ru/).

Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) established IAPCAR to serve as a vehicle to unify arms rights groups against international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns.

“IAPCAR strongly opposes any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and civilian arms rights for self-defense,” said SAF’s Versnel.

CCRKBA’s Gottlieb added, “The growth of this international movement to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms is an unprecedented advancement for freedom.”

Spanish Gun Rights Group Joins IAPCAR

Monday, April 30th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  TheGunMag.com

BELLEVUE, WA – The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) added the National Arms Association of Spain (ANARMA) as a new member of the international gun rights association working to protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms around the globe. ANARMA joins 19 other groups from 10 countries on five different continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian arms rights.

“Our international coalition is growing by the day with groups like ANARMA as new allies in securing the universal right to keep and bear arms,” said IAPCAR executive director, Philip Watson.

“I think the positive dialogue on civilian arms rights is only going to grow as we’ve recently added the Austrian group SPSC and now ANARMA of Spain as new members.” Watson observed.

As Spain’s highest profile gun rights advocacy association, ANARMA also runs the popular online website (http://anarma.org).

Guy Weisz, ANARMA’s VP of communication technology and press confirmed ANARMA’s membership with IAPCAR.

Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) established IAPCAR to serve as a vehicle to unify arms rights groups against international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns.

“IAPCAR strongly opposes any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and the individual right to keep arms,” said SAF’s Versnel.

CCRKBA’s Gottlieb added, “Events over the past decade have emphasized the urgent need to protect the individual right to defend oneself and one’s family against grave threats, including crime, civil unrest and terrorism. IAPCAR is dedicated to preserving this human right.”

The Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right

Friday, April 20th, 2012

by Newt Gingrich

Original Story VIA: Human Events

At the United Nations, the governments (and the dictatorships) of the world are conspiring to deny their people a means to defend their families and their liberty.

The Small Arms Treaty and the U.N.’s project on International Small Arms Control Standards seek to impose global restrictions on gun ownership that would apply to Americans and the citizens of every country that ratified the agreements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to support the treaty, an excuse for governments everywhere to empower themselves and limit their citizens instead of the other way around.

As long as we’re limited to fighting over the Left’s gun control agenda we’re debating on their terms. We have to go on offense.

The Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We already have the right, because it doesn’t come from government—it comes from God.
Our founders understood this right is essential to the defense of liberty. It was a lesson they learned firsthand at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, 237 years ago this week. As David Hackett Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride recounts, in order to quench the beginnings of the American Revolution, British soldiers marched to confiscate gunpowder and other militia supplies, an act that they hoped would incapacitate the colonial rebels. Thus, it was in defense of the right to bear arms as a means of securing the other liberties that the first battle of the American Revolution was fought.

As the Second Amendment implies, the right to bear arms isn’t given to us by the government, and it isn’t just an American right. It is a human right. As a fundamental component of self-defense, the right to bear arms is intimately tied to those universal truths expressed in our Declaration of Independence—that all men have rights to life and liberty, with which they are endowed by their Creator. And they have not just a right but a duty to throw off despotic government.

These truths are universal. The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.

Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.

Far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, far fewer towns would be destroyed, and far fewer dictators would survive if people everywhere on the planet had this God-given right to bear arms recognized. Mass killings and rapes like those that took place in Darfur might have been prevented if the people had the right and the means to defend themselves. When citizens have the power to defend themselves against a violent and tyrannical regime, governments think twice about trampling the lives and liberty of the people.

The United Nations has an extensive Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to join a labor union and the right to social services and security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood or old age.

Nowhere does it provide for the right to keep and bear arms that in many places around the world is so critical to self-defense. And the Small Arms Treaty is a deliberate attempt to restrict these human rights.

I believe the United States should submit to the U.N. a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.

It is critical not just for those living under oppressive regimes, but for the many people who live in conditions in which the government cannot secure their safety. From dangerous neighborhoods even here in the United States to lawless regions of the world run by gangs and warlords, firearms are often the only means of personal security.

When criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense. Only the elites, who’ve never had to live in a dangerous place or fear for their own lives, could be so confident that denying ordinary citizens the right to bear arms would make everyone safer.

It isn’t enough to watch people move from one dictatorship to another, nations lurching from disaster to disaster. In submitting a treaty to the U.N. guaranteeing that right, America can represent its trust in the basic decency of millions of people around the world and our belief that the God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence apply to them, too. We can let them know that if they had a government that recognized their inherent rights; a government that understood that they were a citizens, not subjects; a government that understood it is government which is to be limited, not people, they too would the chance to pursue happiness and live in safety.

That’s the message our president and secretary of state should be standing up for, not a document designed for the protection of dictators.

CANADA: Quebec long-gun battle set for June

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Original Story VIA: Sun News Canada

MONTREAL – A Superior Court judge said he will decide next week on whether or not the federal government can begin destroying long-gun registry data related to Quebec gun owners.

Quebec brought the federal government to court in order to preserve the gun records kept on Quebecers. The province wants to create its own registry.

The trial between Quebec and the federal government begins in June. Quebec wants Judge Marc-Andre Blanchard to prevent the Conservatives from destroying long-gun data before June proceedings begin. The Conservatives want to start destroying the data immediately, regardless of the trial.

The House of Commons voted to destroy the registry – including the Quebec records – in February. The bill was given royal assent April 5.

CANADA: Tories disarm proposed new ammo rules

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Sun News Network

DANIEL PROUSSALIDIS | QMI AGENCY

OTTAWA – The Conservative MP who led the fight against the long-gun registry appears to have the backing of the prime minister in shooting down proposed changes to ammunition storage rules that have upset hunters and other firearms users.

“They’re not changing,” Candice Hoeppner told Sun News Network. “So I think law-abiding gun owners can rest assured the storage requirements that are currently in place will continue.”

The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed Hoeppner is right.
“Correct,” Andrew McDougall, the prime minister’s director of communications, said in an e-mail. “Our government will not make changes that unfairly target law-abiding citizens with unnecessary or arbitrary obligations.”

That seems to trump National Resources Minister Joe Oliver, whose ministry proposed the new ammunition storage rules as part of an update of decades-old explosives regulations.

Oliver has said the rules need to be updated “without unduly burdening gun owners.”

Firearms lawyer Solomon Friedman said gun owners need clarity because the regulations are unworkable for people who use firearms as tools – or who live far from police and may have to defend themselves against a home invader.

“We’re going to see a whole new set of traps for the unwary, which is really what these regulations will become,” Freidman said. “What this does is it creates a whole new class of paper criminals – people who’ve committed no wrong, who’ve actually not misused their firearm in any way, but simply because they may have transgressed an administrative regulation they face a
criminal charge. That’s unacceptable.”

VIDEO: NRA Convention Speech ‘Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right’

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Newt Gingrich gave a rousing speech at the NRA Convention supporting international gun rights.

Don’t Blame 2nd Amendement for Mexico Gun Violence

Monday, April 9th, 2012

Original Story VIA: Opposing Views

Submitted by National Shooting Sports Foundation on Apr 9, 2012

During his recent visit to the White House, Mexico President Felipe Calderon renewed his call for a U.S. assault weapons ban as a

During his recent visit to the White House, Mexico President Felipe Calderon renewed his call for a U.S. assault weapons ban as a solution to the drug cartel-caused violence that plagues his country. He also claimed, according to columnist Bill Press, that violence levels are directly related to the number of guns in circulation. Both of these assertions are demonstrably false.

Click here to see our gallery of the most popular guns in America.

Calderon’s pleading for an assault weapons ban (AWB) ignores what multiple studies have shown: that the AWB, which existed from 1994 to 2004, was not an effective crime-fighting tool, largely because they were never used in crime in the first place. Also, since the ban expired, Americans have purchased millions of modern sporting rifles — rifles based on the AR platform whose ownership was restricted by the AWB — yet at the same time violent crime has continued to decline in the United States to its lowest level in decades, demonstrating there is no correlation between the number of guns in circulation and the level of violence.

Let’s take a look at a few other points raised in Press’s column:

“We did a count, said Calderon, and discovered 8,000 American gun shops along the border with Mexico.” This is only relevant if you incorrectly believe federally licensed firearms retailers are somehow responsible for guns going to Mexico. They are not, of course. This is really like saying there are “too many” Ford dealers in a state where there are X number of DWI arrests in which the vehicle driven was a Ford. This also ignores the fact that firearms are only transferred by a firearms retailer after a background check has been performed on the buyer.

“Calderon claimed that in Washington, D.C., the rate of homicides per hundred thousand inhabitants is ‘higher by 10 — more than 10 or 20 than the largest number in any of the big cities in Mexico.’” Even if you assume this statistic is true (I haven’t checked), it is despite the fact that Washington, D.C., has the most stringent gun-control laws in the United States. It’s time to admit it that gun control is a failed social experiment.

“It’s almost as if, like global warming, the issue of gun control has disappeared from public view.” Perhaps that is because support for gun-control laws is at a record low in the U.S., according to Gallup’s annual Crime Poll. The same poll shows that most Americans do not support banning so-called “assault weapons” (even using this demonizing misnomer for modern sporting rifles), the very ban President Calderon and Bill Press seek to reinstate.

The real truth about Mexico and guns has been discussed many times on this blog, but in light of new press coverage of Calderon’s remarks, it bears repeating.

The independent research group STRATFOR — a publication Bill Press cites in his column — has corroborated what NSSF has been saying for some time about firearms recovered from drug cartels in Mexico: that it is erroneous and grossly misleading to say that the majority of firearms recovered in Mexico came from the United States.

Only 12 percent of the firearms misused in Mexico were originally sold at retail in the United States. The proof can be found in the U.S. government statistics in a report released by the independent research group STRATFOR and that the pie chart clearly illustrates:

Also, according to ATF, firearms recovered in Mexico and successfully traced as coming from the U.S. were originally lawfully sold in the United States an average of 15 years before they were seized and traced in Mexico. So that means they were sold long before the “assault weapon ban” sunset in 2004. Good luck trying to find these facts reported anywhere in the mainstream media.

An editorial published in the Miami Herald taking up Calderon’s argument says that bazookas and automatic weapons are purchased in large quantities at U.S. firearms retailers and then trafficked to Mexico. This is ridiculous and patently false. It has been widely documented by such publications as the L.A. Times, Washington Post and CBS News, that the drug cartels are acquiring firearms and serious weapons like grenades from Central America and black market sources. Also, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers have defected to go work for the cartels, clearly taking their U.S. made firearms with them.

Our industry abhors the criminal misuse of firearms, whether on the streets of Miami or Juarez, Mexico. That is why the public should know America’s firearms industry cooperates with law enforcement to prevent the illegal purchase of firearms, most recently working with ATF along the border on a program called Don’t Lie for the Other Guy that warns the public about the serious penalties for straw purchasing.

We can all agree that there are serious crime problems in Mexico, and notwithstanding his factual misstatements, we do applaud Mexican President Calderon’s courage for cracking down on the drug cartels and rampant corruption in his country, that has even reach inside his inner circle. However, laying the blame for Mexico’s crime at the feet of the U.S. firearms industry is more an act of frustration than a crime-fighting strategy, and, as we’ve said before, sacrificing the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans as a means of addressing this issue is neither an option nor a solution.

VIDEO: Private security guards shoot Somali pirates

Friday, April 6th, 2012

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

VIDEO: CANADA – Quebec halts gun registry data destruction

Friday, April 6th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Sun News Network Canada

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

JESSICA MURPHY | QMI AGENCY

OTTAWA – A Quebec judge has put the brakes on plans by the Conservative government to quickly destroy long-gun registry records.

On Thursday, a Quebec superior court decision barred the feds from scrapping the records until court hears the province’s request for a permanent injunction next week.

The province filed the injunction Monday in a bid to prevent the federal government from destroying records kept on long-gun owners as soon as Bill C-19 receives royal assent.

Quebec is planning to create its own gun registry.

On Thursday morning, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews dodged questions about how the government would follow through on its promise to destroy the records despite Quebec’s legal maneuvers.

“I won’t comment on any specific court action, but our government is clear in the defence of the legislation that we have passed,” he said.

A government spokeswoman said that while the data won’t immediately be destroyed, it will no longer be accessible to law enforcement.

Canadian long-gun owners will no longer have to register their firearms as soon as the bill gets the governor general’s stamp on Thursday.

Canadians will still need a valid licence to buy and own a firearm. There are no changes to laws regarding prohibited or restricted firearms.

The mandatory registry for long guns has been controversial since its inception in 1995.

Concerns over gun control are an especially hot button issue in Quebec. The registry was created in the wake of public outrage following the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, where 14 women were killed.

But many law-abiding gun owners felt the registry targeted them as criminals, was ineffectual as a gun control measure, and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

“Free at last, free at last,” Tory MP John Williamson said in the House of Commons Thursday.

 

Pathetic: Obama, Calderon, Press Avoid Fast and Furious Discussion

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

Original Article VIA:  TownHall.com

By Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

President Barack Obama just wrapped up a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Candadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The three world leaders discussed a number of topics including trade and energy, but what did they fail to discuss? Operation Fast and Furious. Although the topic of gun trafficking was discussed at length by both Calderon and Obama, reporters never asked about Fast and Furious specifically and the two leaders weren’t going to go out of their way to bring it up.

Calderon, as a expected, blamed Mexico’s cartel violence not on the cartels themselves, but on the large “flow” of guns from the United States into Mexico. Calderon reiterated his view the United States should re-instate the ban on “assault,” or semi-automatic weapons. It seems that President Calderon, who is always harping about the “flow” of guns from the United States into Mexico, would have expressed outrage that President Obama’s Justice Department had deliberately placed 2500 guns into the hands of ruthless cartels during Operation Fast and Furious. Instead, Calderon chose to blame the Second Amendment for his country’s out of control violence. Calderon also failed to mention the reason why his people are being slaughtered is because they don’t have the ability to legally own guns and fight back against the cartels. Mexico’s strict gun laws have left its innocent people as sitting ducks.

On the issue of guns flowing from “north to south,” President Obama, whose Justice Department once again, under leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder walked 2500 guns into Mexico, failed to mention Fast and Furious. In fact, President Obama predictably gave himself credit for stopping the so-called flow of guns from the U.S., south.

“When you have innocent families, women and children being gunned down in the streets, that should be everyone’s problem,” Obama said. “We’ve put in efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking from north to south.”

Calderon also gave Obama credit for stopping the so-called flow of guns from the U.S. into Mexico.

Trade Group Aids Texas Gun Seller’s Suit Against Feds

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  The Texas Tribune

A national firearms trade association that boasts more than 7,000 members is helping finance a lawsuit in which a Texas gun dealer is challenging a federal reporting requirement for the sale of long rifles.

The Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc., whose mission statement is to “promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports,” is helping finance a legal team for Golden States Tactical, a northern California firearms seller and NSSF member, in a lawsuit that was originally filed by San Antonio-based 10-Ring Precision Inc.

The company took action in August after the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a rule last year requiring licensed firearms dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to report to the agency any time two or more long rifles are sold to the same buyer within a five-day period. The requirement pertains to rifles with calibers greater than .22 and capable of holding a detachable clip.

The bureau says the move is a good-faith effort to curb the illegal transport of firearms to violence-plagued Mexico. They point to a similar rule that has been in place for handguns as proof that the latest policy isn’t an assault on Second Amendment rights.

Sellers, however, say the requirement is government intrusion hurting their businesses and a power grab by the federal government, which invoked the rule without congressional approval.

“I am basically being asked to do something other than what is required by law by the ATF,” said Robby Betts, a licensed firearms dealer with Golden States Tactical. “I’ve got people not wanting to buy guns now.”

Keep hands off our guns: U.N.’s ‘Small Arms Treaty’ proposal misfiring in U.S.

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Asbury Park Press

 

With the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was legally carrying a 9-millimeter handgun, the familiar wail has arisen from our cultural and media elite:

America has too many guns! “Open carry” and “concealed carry” laws should be repealed.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, replicated in two dozen states, threatens to turn America into the Tombstone of Doc Holiday and Wyatt Earp. This is insane!

The United Nations agrees. This year, the world body takes up the global control of firearms, including small arms in the hands of citizens.

According to Sen. Rand Paul, the U.N. “Small Arms Treaty” will almost surely mandate tougher licensing requirements to own a gun, require the confiscation and destruction of unauthorized civilian firearms, call for a ban on the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, and create an international gun registry.

No more Colt .45s in the top drawer or M-1 rifles in the closet.

Memo to the U.N.: Lots of luck.

Forty-five Republican and 12 Democratic senators have declared their opposition to any such U.N. treaty, which means it is dead in the water the moment it is launched from Turtle Bay.

For when it comes to Second Amendment rights, Middle America has spoken — at the ballot box and the gun store. And Congress, most state legislatures and the federal courts have all come down on the side of the Silent Majority.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court struck down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, assuring district citizens of their right to keep a gun in the home.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, mentioned as a running mate for Mitt Romney, just signed a law striking down a 20-year ban that kept residents from buying more than one pistol per month.

The new law ignited New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who calls Virginia “the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York and one of the top suppliers of crime guns nationally.”

Two New York cops have been shot this year, one fatally, with guns from Virginia.

But there is another side to the gun story, and University of Houston Professor Larry Bell relates it:

“Law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times in 1993 (about 6,825 times per day), and actually shot and killed two and a half times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606).

“These self-defense shootings resulted in less than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2 percent versus 11 percent).”

The figures tell the story. Along with rising incarceration rates, the proliferation of guns in the hands of the law-abiding has been a factor in the nation’s falling crime rate. And that proliferation has accelerated under President Barack Obama.

According to ammo.net, tax revenues from the sale of firearms and ammunition have gone up 48 percent since 2008, with Iowa, North Carolina and Utah registering revenue gains of more than 100 percent.

Background searches in December broke the all-time monthly record set in November, as 1,534,414 inquiries were made to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System about prospective gun-buyers.

Why are Americans arming themselves? More and more citizens, says the National Rifle Association, fear that if or when they confront a threat to their family, lives or property, the police will not be there.

Gun-control organizations claim that gun ownership is actually declining, that fewer and fewer people are buying more and more of these guns. But the numbers seem to contradict the gun-controllers.

A 2005 Gallup survey found that three in 10 Americans own a gun, that 40 percent had a gun in the house, that nearly half of all men own a gun, as do one in seven women. Two-thirds of all gun-owners gave as a reason they own a gun: protection against crime.

America is an armed camp, with the South and Midwest the most heavily armed. Yet, still, Americans buy guns in the millions every year.

Why? Whatever the answer, it is our business, not the U.N.’s.

Holland to make IPSC shooting sports illegal?

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

From our friends at the Lone Star Shooting Association

 

Dear friends,

Please read the following about a new law proposed for Holland.  And please answer the Call to Arms.

Call to Arms

In military terms a Call to Arms is an urgent request for action when one’s comrade has an immediate need for help. It is time to drop whatever you are doing, pick up your firearm and go to their aid.

There is a new law proposed for Holland that would make IPSC shooting sports illegal. In fact this law would make all dynamic shooting sports illegal. This proposed law will come up for vote in a few of weeks so time is short. If the anti-gunners are successful in taking law abiding citizens’ freedoms away by passing this law, then the rest of the European Union will surely follow suit and take away the freedoms of even more citizens.

The NPSA is the body that governs IPSC shooting in Holland. Mr. Kees Quichelaar, Regional Director and Eduard Rodrigas, chairman of the NPSA committee need our help to fight against this proposed law.

Why, you ask, should I be concerned about Holland losing their freedom to participate in action shooting sports? You should be concerned because it is a step towards you losing your freedom to shoot the sport you like. Anti-gun proponents will not stop with just shutting down a shooting sport in the Netherlands. It will spread like wildfire through the European Union and the Americas.

The Lone Star Shooting Association (LSSA) is committed to helping our IPSC brothers in Holland. Mr. Saul Kirsch, General Manager Double-Alpha Academy B.V., has posted an on-line petition located on The Truth About Guns website.   Please go there and add your name in support of this battle against loss of freedom.

Click here to sign the petition.

FISAT has named this action “Broken Arrow.”

Act now.  Our brothers in arms need our help.

 

Gary W. Burris

Mexico’s Calderon urges Obama, Congress to tighten gun laws

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Original Story By Dave Boyer – VIA:  The Washington Times

Monday, April 2, 2012

As he listened to Mexico’s president lecture about the need for Washington to ban assault weapons, President Obama said Monday that the U.S. has an obligation to combat gun smuggling that is fueled increasingly by drug addicts in rural communities.

Drug addiction in the U.S. “traditionally was very urban,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference. But that is changing, he said.

“You go into rural communities and you’ve got methamphetamine sales that are devastating, you know, young and old alike,” the president said. “And some of that is originally sourced in Mexico. We recognize that we have a responsibility to reduce demand for drugs, that we have a responsibility to make sure that not only guns, but also bulk cash isn’t flowing into Mexico.”

His comments came after Mexican President Felipe Calderon again called on Congress to renew a ban on assault weapons.

“The expiry of the assault weapons ban in the year 2004 coincided almost exactly with the beginning of the harshest period of violence we’ve ever seen,” Mr. Calderon said. “We have seized over 140,000 weapons in four years … and the vast majority of these weapons were sold in gun shops in the United States. Along the border of the U.S. and Mexico, there are approximately 8,000 weapons shops. That means that there are approximately nine weapons stores for each Wal-Mart that exists in the United States and Mexico.”

The Mexican president spoke at length during a Rose Garden news conference about what is an uncomfortable subject for Mr. Obama, whose administration is under investigation by Congress over the notorious “Fast and Furious” program. Organized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and overseen by the Department of Justice, the program sent thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels via straw purchasers, or people who legally purchase guns in the United States with the intention of illegally trafficking them somewhere else. At least 300 people in Mexico were killed with weapons provided by Fast and Furious, including U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Calderon mentioned Fast and Furious in public Monday. Mr. Obama said stopping the flow of illegal guns into Mexico is a “difficult task.”

“We’ve actually put into practice efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking north to south,” Mr. Obama said. “We will continue to coordinate closely with the Mexican government because we recognize the toll that it’s taken with respect to families and innocent individuals inside of Mexico.”

Mr. Calderon said he appreciated the “administrative effort” being undertaken by the Obama administration to stop gun trafficking.

“We’ve seen a much more active effort in this sense than in any other time in the past,” Mr. Calderon said.

But the Mexican president added that, unless the U.S. enacts a ban on assault weapons and greater gun registration, “Then we are never going to be able to stop the violence in Mexico or stop a future turning of those guns upon the U.S.”

He also ridiculed the state of Texas for recommending that college students avoid traveling to Mexico for “spring break,” saying young people were ignoring the warning.

“There are hundreds of thousands of young Texans who go to Mexico, enjoy it, and … we haven’t seen one single incident with U.S. ‘spring-breakers’ in Mexico this past spring,” Mr. Calderon said.

PHILIPPINES: Stricter gun control measures ordered

Monday, March 26th, 2012

March 26, 2012

Written by: Alfred Dalizon

Original Story VIA:  Philippine Journal Online

MAMANG PULIS — PHILIPPINE National Police chief Director General Nicanor A. Bartolome has ordered the implementation of stricter gun control measures aimed at reducing by 10 percent gun-related crimes and reducing by 3.38 percent the number of loose firearms in the country.

He tasked the PNP Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management to spearhead the massive nationwide gun control campaign aimed also at accounting for loose firearms and tens of thousands of licensed guns whose owners have failed to renew their registration over the years.

Bartolome also directed all 17 police regional directors and the different PNP national operational support units to go after loose firearm holders in their jurisdiction to arrest increasing number of criminal incidents involving the use of firearms, mostly loose weapons.

The PNP Firearms and Explosives Office headed by Senior Superintendent Raul D. Petrasanta has been tasked to furnish police regional offices with complete list of delinquent firearm holders for appropriate action.

The PNP operational plan called “Oplan Kontra Boga” includes home visits to gun owners with expired licenses in a bid to reduce by more than three percent the number of loose firearms in the country every month.

Gen. Bartolome instructed his men to conduct home visits to gun owners with expired licenses to either urge them to secure necessary documents or confiscate their firearms.

There are around 1.1 million loose firearms in the country, according to PNP estimates in 2009. The number is believed to have gone down drastically as the PNP launched its first massive anti-weapons campaign before the 2010 elections won by President Benigno Aquino III.

Gen. Bartolome said the proposal to visit the homes of persons with delinquent firearm licenses was approved during the first national summit on firearms control held in Camp Crame in 2009.

The PNP chief said that police operations against unregistered firearms would include dragnet operations in crime-prone areas, mobile checkpoints and choke points, intelligence build-up, application of search warrants and the dismantling of private armed groups.

Bellevue’s CCRKBA works to stop U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Friday, March 23rd, 2012
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner

Global gun control proponents are preparing to adopt an international arms trade treaty at the United Nations in July, but the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been working busily behind the scenes to stop them.

CCRKBA is making no secret of the fact that its staff has been involved in the development of two pieces of legislation, HR 3594, introduced in the House of Representatives last Dec. 7 (Pearl Harbor Day, and the irony of this is not lost on anyone), and S. 2205, unveiled Wednesday.

The House measure is sponsored by Congressman Joe Walsh, a maverick Illinois Republican freshman who addressed last year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference in Chicago and had the audience ready to march on Washington. The Senate measure comes from Kansas Republican Jerry Moran, who had this to say:

Continue reading on Examiner.com Bellevue’s CCRKBA works to stop U.N. Arms Trade Treaty – Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/bellevue-s-ccrkba-works-to-stop-u-n-arms-trade-treaty#ixzz1pzT4b124

“The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act ensures that our country’s sovereignty and firearm freedoms will not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. Our Second Amendment rights are not negotiable.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb has devoted considerable time and energy working in the background to thwart this global gun control initiative. He was a powerhouse behind formation of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) a couple of years ago. Both CCRKBA and its sister organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, were deeply involved in IAPCAR’s formation.

IAPCAR now includes gun rights groups from several nations, and recently made news when it called for Attorney General Eric Holder to step down over his continuous stonewalling on Operation Fast and Furious. This column discussed that development.

Gottlieb and his wife, Julianne, have spent much time at the United Nations on the global gun control issue, and traveling to meetings of international gun rights leaders. They see this initiative as a looming threat to Second Amendment sovereignty. When Moran introduced his legislation Wednesday, Gottlieb made this observation:

“With the U.N. poised to move on its proposed treaty this summer, it is important for Congress to fulfill its responsibility to protect our Constitutional rights, rather than allow them to be eroded by international political correctness.”

In December, after Walsh unveiled his measure – which would prohibit the expenditure of U.S. tax dollars on U.N. activities if those efforts in any way threaten the gun rights of American citizens – Gottlieb greeted that bill by noting:

“At a time when our constitutional freedoms are at stake, the only way to prevent their erosion by international treaty is to put in place the legislative mechanism to cut the U.N. off financially. We’re delighted that Walsh and nearly a dozen of his colleagues have the vision and intestinal fortitude to pursue that preventative measure. International gun grabbers need to keep their hands off of our Constitution, and out of our pockets.”

The good news is that CCRKBA and SAF, and IAPCAR, are not the only ones in this battle. The National Rifle Association has also been alerting its troops to the U.N.’s global gun control threat. Many gun rights activists are convinced that Fast and Furious was a component of the global gun control effort, though there has yet been no evidence directly linking the two.

Then, again, as Congressman Darrell Issa has repeatedly noted, the Justice Department has yet to deliver tens of thousands of documents requested by Issa’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is investigating Fast and Furious. This column refrains from engaging in “tinfoil hat” speculation about what may or may not be in those documents – and whether Fast and Furious could be part of some sinister global gun control plot. On the other hand, who would have guessed 15 months ago that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would have engaged in a gun walking effort that put some 2,000 guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels? Who would have thought the only reason that operation was hastily shut down was because two of those “walked” guns were recovered at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2010? Anyone remember one disgusted ATF whistleblower telling Issa’s committee last year that Fast and Furious was “the perfect storm of idiocy?”

Wednesday, while chatting with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, he recalled traveling last year to the U.N. to speak.

“Talk about an out-of-body experience,” he said, with no small degree of sarcasm. “Standing there in front of all those ‘bastions of freedom’ like Syria and Iran and North Korea and Cuba and China, and understanding that they want to come into our country and infect our freedoms literally like a germ, and dumb our freedoms down to a lesser standard…that’s their intent.”

And he added this gem:

“What I told them in July when I testified…I looked them right in the eye and told them about American freedom, and that they had no authority to mess with it, no way, no how.”

There is a battle looming in July over global gun control and U.S. constitutional sovereignty, but expect very little attention from the national “mainstream” press. They’re not likely to report how the Obama administration warmed right up to the treaty concept back in 2009, after the previous administration (you know, the one that gets blamed for everything from current high gas prices to the sinking of the Titanic) consistently turned thumbs down on it.

It is too late, however, to sweep this one under the same rug as Fast and Furious. As Wyatt Earp allegedly stated to Ike Clanton after the shooting started in Tombstone on Oct. 26, 1881, “The fight’s commenced. Get to fighting or get away!”

In the gun rights community, that appears to be the sentiment.

While it may be a long shot for either piece of legislation to get any traction, that’s not going to discourage American gun owners. They are already fired up over this year’s national elections, and many see the current administration’s interest in international gun control as an example of things to come unless there is a sea change in November.

SEN. MORAN’S BILL TO PROTECT 2A FROM U.N. HAILED BY CCRKBA, IAPCAR

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

SEN. MORAN’S BILL TO PROTECT 2A FROM U.N. HAILED BY CCRKBA, IAPCAR

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

BELLEVUE, WA – Kansas Senator Jerry Moran’s newly-introduced legislation to protect Second Amendment rights from a proposed United Nations small arms treaty is an idea that needs to be passed quickly, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Sen. Moran’s proposed Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S. 2205, is similar to legislation introduced in the House by Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh in December. Like the Walsh bill, Sen. Moran’s measure would prohibit the Obama administration from attempting to influence Arms Trade Treaty negotiations that might restrict the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

“We’re delighted that Sen. Moran has unveiled this bill,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “With the U.N. poised to move on its proposed treaty this summer, it is important for Congress to fulfill its responsibility to protect our Constitutional rights, rather than allow them to be eroded by international political correctness.”

Like the Walsh bill, Sen. Moran’s legislation was developed with cooperation and assistance of CCRKBA staff, Gottlieb confirmed.

“In the fall of 2009,” he recalled, “the Obama administration reversed long-standing opposition to U.S. participation in Arms Trade Treaty negotiations. While this treaty purportedly will concentrate on conventional military weapons, including tanks and missiles, there remains a genuine threat that its scope could be expanded during negotiations to include civilian small arms and ammunition.

“Such a treaty could have a significant impact on hunters, target shooters and every other American citizen who exercises his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb stated. “The Citizens Committee will be watching these negotiations under a microscope, and in the meantime, we will encourage our members and every gun owner to contact their two senators and urge them to support Sen. Moran’s legislation.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

Will The US Senate Ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty?

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Right Side News

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

By J. D. Longstreet

I originally wrote about this threat in December of 2010. But with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton having publicly stated that the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty,”  American gun owners need to keep in mind that with the constraints of another election no longer facing Obama (should he win in November) the Obama Administration can press ahead at — flank speed — to ram this treaty through the US Senate.  If passed it will, for all intents and purposes, disarm American citizens … superseding the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
We haven’t heard much about gun control lately, here in America, and I am beginning to believe that is by design. The Obama Administration does not want to awaken American gun owners — at least until AFTER THE ELECTION!The fact of the matter is this: The UN Small Arms Treaty amounts to global gun control.

It may surprise Americans to learn that our government is filled with lawmakers who endorse a one world government with the UN as the single governing agency for the globe.  They will most certainly support the UN’s Small Arms Treaty when it comes before the US Senate

As we noted above, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.”

It is expected that the Washington Gun-Grabbers will package the treaty as legislation to assist in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates.” But the truth is this: The U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

American organizations supporting the Second Amendment have warned that the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:make gun licensing requirements far tougher than they are now, which would force law-abiding citizens to have to trudge through even more bureaucratic red tape just to legally own a gun;

It would also give the UN the power to CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms.  Of course, all firearms owned by the government will be excluded.

The treaty would BAN the trade, sale, and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons.

There will be an INTERNATIONAL gun registry created.  Once they know who has the guns — and where the guns are — we can expect full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

The citizen “unrest” in America today over the teetering economy and the socialist agenda by those in power in Washington, may make the ratification by the US Senate of this “treaty” seem far more palatable and even desirous by our current government.  And that is why we bring this warning to you. We must keep a wary eye on the goings-on in the national legislature.

In 2009, we issued a warning concerning the unceasing work of “gun-grabbers” in America. In that article we said the following: “So America edges ever closer to losing the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, quite possibly even the right to carry a knife. There can be no doubt that a knife, in the time of our forefathers, was, indeed, a weapon. It would, no doubt, fall into the category of “arms.” There can also be no doubt as to why the forefathers felt it important to place this amendment (the second amendment) in the constitution as a part of the original 10 amendments that made up the Bill of Rights. They had just fought a war against a tyrant to gain their freedom – and they did it with a citizen’s army composed of men who owned their own weapons!

George Washington, the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States said the following: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Thomas Jefferson said the following: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

And finally, words from the most well known of the tyrants of the last century, Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

It is good, I think, to note that The Forefathers felt so highly of the right to keep and bear arms that it is the SECOND Amendment. The first being, of course, freedom of speech, religion, etc.  Please note that without the Second Amendment the First Amendment would effectively be null and void.

We must tread softly, yet boldly, as we attempt to protect our rights these days. America has two generations of citizens trained in socialism as products of the Public (Government) School System. Like “Pavlov’s Dog” they await only the ringing of the bell to respond in defense of the “greater good.” But, like the other dog, chasing it’s tail, they haven’t the reasoning ability to ask of themselves what they intend to do with the tail if, and when, they DO catch it?”

“The price of freedom is, indeed, eternal vigilance.” The Democratic Party has demonstrated their utter contempt for the concerns and wishes of the American citizen. Currently they continue to hold the reins of power in the US Senate and will, most likely, continue to do so after the November election. We cannot drop our guard, or divert our attention for one moment. If there is a way, anyway, (as we have learned the hard way) the democrats will try to sneak ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty through the Senate with no regard for the opposition of American gun owners nor for those who insist the US Constitution still reigns supreme in America — NOT THE UN.

If the Obama Regime is returned to power in November — along with the liberal-socialists politicians that are, unfortunately, the Democratic Party these days — the constitutional rights of all Americans are in peril.

Conservatives must work harder than ever as we continue our endeavor to rid our nation’s leadership of those who support the United Nations and their goal of establishing a one world government, or global governance, under THE UN’s control.

We must not allow the UN Small Arms Treaty to be ratified by the US Senate… period!

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”.· He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.· A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.

Articles by J.D. Longstreet are posted at: “INSIGHT on Freedom“,· “Hurricane Alley… by Longstreet”,· “The Carolina Post” and numerous other conservative websites around the web.·

VIDEO: Arms Trade Treaty – The Hell With Congress

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  AMMOLAND

Manasquan, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- There is a widespread misunderstanding on the part of American gun-owners, evidenced in gun blogs and in commentaries on articles dealing with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

The crux of this misunderstanding is that, since there are checks and balances in our Constitution, and since the Constitution clearly states that ratification of a treaty can only occur “provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,” this is almost impossible to come about.

Therefore, we will never be subjected to the constraints of, and penalties for, violations of an Arms Trade Treaty.

Most of those who voice this sentiment do so vehemently, and with all certainty that this is fact, rather than merely conjecture.

What they refuse to acknowledge is that when it comes to words —even those in our sacred blueprint for a representative government, the Constitution— nothing is actually all black and white; when it comes to words —especially words that were penned more than 2 centuries earlier when the world was very different— it will almost always be possible to find grey areas that can be breached to achieve a desired political goal.

The fact is that our Constitution does not protect us against the growing customary international law or the growing norm of global civilian disarmament.

There are many references in the literature which address this situation. We will cite only two: “The Second Amendment and Global Gun Control,” by Joseph Bruce Alonso (Journal on Firearms & Public Policy, Vol. 15), and “The Human Right of Self-Defense” by David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen (Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, Vol 22, Number 1).

These two papers provide carefully documented proof that ratification of an international treaty can occur —and can be made binding to U.S. citizens— without any Senate action at all!

But this is not simply our opinion. The hyperlinks below are provided for convenience, so that any reader can judge for him- or herself as to the veracity of this thesis as part of current international law.

Alonso notes that “There are a variety of ways that these [international] gun control laws could affect the rights and obligations of parties within the United States.”

He enumerates some of the mechanisms which might come into play to effect such a scenario:

  • “The first way is the possibility that the President of the United States signs…[a treaty]. Signature by a United States President would indicate to the international community that the United States intends to abide by the gun control laws, with or without ratification by the Senate.”
  • “A second way these gun control laws could affect United States parties is in the event that gun control becomes a customary international law. Even if the United States did not sign on to either treaty, if the United States began to abide by the treaties, the United States may, in effect, be consenting to the treaties becoming customary international law. In the eyes of an international court, the United States, by following the treaties, is consenting to be bound by the treaties in the future. To avoid accidental consent, the United States should expressly state that as a nation, the United States does not consent to the gun control treaties and that any activity consistent with the treaties is not intended to recognize the treaties’ legal status. If the United States does not make such an express statement to the international community, the United States might, arguably, be expected to maintain any and all gun control measures that the treaties require.”
  • “A third way the gun control measures could affect United States parties is through nonconsensual customary law. Nonconsensual customary international law may arise as a result of international practice. This international practice may be evidenced by events not approved by the United States but eventually held binding on the United States….In many ways, the international community is in agreement on gun control, with the exception being the United States. The respect and adherence by numerous countries to strict gun control adds weight to the notion that a common understanding of how sovereign states must deal with private gun ownership can be established with or without every country’s consent.”

Not only are there grey areas in the treaty ratification process, but they are also present in the ways in which our country can be dragged into war.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power To….declare War….” However, in the course of our research, we spotted an item printed in the March 8, 2012 edition of the Canada Free Press. An article entitled Obama Admin Cites Int’l Permission, Not Congress, as ‘Legal Basis’ For Action in Syria stated: “Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that ‘international permission,’ rather than Congressional approval, provided a ‘legal basis’ for military action by the United States.”

The video above includes the interview, and the replies from Panetta and Dempsey to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), are nothing short of mind-boggling to hear! In response to Panetta and Dempsey concerning the issue of Congressional approval, Sen. Sessions replied incredulously: “Well, I’m almost breathless about that. Because what I heard you say was we’re going to seek international approval, and you will come and tell the Congress what we might do….”

The fact is that the U.S. Constitution was written two centuries ago, and we live in a very different world. Times change, and there are many things that our Founding Fathers never anticipated when they wrote the Constitution onto parchment with quill and ink. It is obviously now possible to be forced into a war without the approval of Congress.

And it is also now possible to be forced to abide by the terms of a treaty —like the ATT— without Congressional approval.

According to Kopel, Gallant & Eisen (p. 54-55):

“Having been selected as Special Rapporteur by the old Human Rights Commission, [Barbara] Frey delivered her final report to the new Human Rights Council on July 27, 2006. On August 24, 2006, the UN Human Rights Council’s subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights endorsed the Frey report, and announced that all national governments were required by international human rights law to implement various listed gun control provisions; the subcommission recommended that the full Human Rights Council also adopt the report and issue a similar mandate. Of course the subcommission has little power to enforce its wishes directly, but the declaration gives national government officials, including courts, considerable support to promote restrictive gun laws which are, according to the UN, mandated by international law. The full Human Rights Council is scheduled to take up the issue, and indications at the time of this writing suggest that the full Council will ratify most or all of Frey’s report. The Chairman of the full Human Rights Council has already announced his enthusiastic support for the Frey Report, the subcommission’s adoption of the report, and the prospect of using the Human Rights Council to advance a worldwide gun control mandate. The Frey Report, then, is not simply a scholarly paper that will be filed away in a United Nations library. It is an effort to establish a new norm of international human rights law, and this effort to establish the new norm is supported by the United Nations Human Rights Council, as one aspect of the UN’s far-ranging support for restrictive and confiscatory firearms policies (emphasis ours).”

The Frey report should be required reading for all Americans – gun-owner and non-gun-owner alike, for there is every likelihood that the ATT, in some form, will be enacted! And her report—which represents the UN’s view and the new world “norm,” is one of the scariest documents one can find to describe what our America would look like if the ATT proponents have their way!

The UN has been able to twist the individual human right of self-defense into a human rights abuse against a perpetrator. In the words of Barbara Frey:

“Self-defence is sometimes designated as a ‘right’. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another. No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles.”

So much for our Constitution and its Bill of Rights!

About the authors:
Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice optometry and dentistry, respectively, on Long Island, NY, and have collaborated on firearm politics for the past 20 years. They have also collaborated with David B. Kopel since 2000, and are Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, where Kopel is Research Director. Most recently, Gallant and Eisen have also written with Alan J. Chwick. Sherry Gallant has been instrumental in the editing of virtually all of the authors’ writings, and is immensely knowledgeable in the area of firearm politics; she actively co-authored this article.

Almost all of the co-authored writings of Gallant, Eisen, Kopel and Chwick can be found at http://gallanteisen.incnf.org/, which contains more detailed information about their biographies and writing, and contains hyperlinks to many of their articles. Their recent series focusing on the Arms Trade Treaty can be found primarily athttp://gwg.incnf.org/ . Respective E-Mail addresses are: PaulGallant2A@cs.com, JoanneDEisen@cs.com, AJChwick@iNCNF.org, Sherry.Gallant@gmail.com

Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/03/12/arms-trade-treaty-the-hell-with-congress/#ixzz1p70KN2pm

CANADA: Ontario Crown appeals after court shoots down minimum gun sentences

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  OTTAWA CITIZEN

By Bradley Bouzane, Postmedia News February 27, 2012

The Ontario Attorney General has appealed a recent court ruling that deemed mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes unconstitutional.

The Ontario Crown served the appeal on Friday, setting up a future appearance before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

One of the lawyers who argued the constitutional issues surrounding the sentence for Leroy Smickle of Toronto – who eventually received a lighter sentence for a gun crime despite the mandatory minimums imposed by the federal Conservative government – said it’s no surprise the Crown intends to contest the ruling from the Ontario Superior Court.

“There’s a section of the Criminal Code that was declared to be unconstitutional,” said Dirk Derstine, who was brought in by Smickle’s lawyers to argue the constitutional matter. “The Attorney General’s office has a mandate to defend the Criminal Code. It’s a very important section from the Crown’s point of view. I’d be surprised if they would just let it lie.

“We’ve all told Mr. Smickle that there may well be an appeal.”

Representatives for the Ontario Attorney General were not available early Monday evening.

Earlier this month, Smickle, 30, who was found holding a loaded handgun, was sentenced to five months under house arrest in addition to the equivalent of seven months spent in pre-trial custody. Mandatory sentences, under changes to the Criminal Code made by the Conservative government, would have required at least three years in prison for the crime.

Judge Anne Molloy described the mandatory sentence as “cruel and unusual punishment” and said sending Smickle to prison for such a lengthy term would be “fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerable.”

In her ruling, Molloy cited the section of the Charter of Rights that says every person “has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.”

The mandatory minimum gun law came into force in 2008 as part of the Conservative government’s “Tackling Violent Crime Act.” A similar approach is part of the new Bill C-10, the Conservative government’s omnibus crime bill.

The bill has been attacked by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which says there is little evidence mandatory minimums provide deterrence, enhance safety or lower crime rates.

Although the Toronto judgment will have important ramifications, the case it emerged from is oddly comic.

A Toronto police tactical squad burst into an apartment in the early morning hours one day in 2009.

Smickle happened to be spending the night at the apartment when officers came looking for his cousin.

When officers burst in, Smickle was on the couch in boxer shorts, tank top and sunglasses, a pistol in his left hand and a laptop computer in his right, apparently taking pictures of himself looking “cool,” court heard.

The gun wasn’t his and police found other guns in the tenant’s bedroom, court heard. Smickle had no criminal record, held a job, has a young child and a fiancee and was working to finish high school.

He was charged with possession of a loaded firearm.

Derstine said Monday that the appeal is likely to be joined with an earlier application dealing with the case of Hussein Nur, another Toronto man who was found in possession of a gun. He had no prior criminal record.

While he could not provide an exact timeline for the matter, Derstine said it would be about six months before the appeal was heard in court.

With files from the National Post

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

The UN Arms Trade Treaty & Our Constitution’s Loophole

Monday, February 27th, 2012

Original Story VIA:  AmmoLand.com

New York, NY--(Ammoland.com)-One of the constant mantras of U.S. firearm-prohibitionists is “close the loophole!”

There’s seemingly a loophole in every restrictive firearm law. And although these demands are presumably for our safety, the intent is to make lawful firearm acquisition and possession more difficult for ordinary citizens.

However, there is one very real loophole that almost no one talks about, or even recognizes. And it lies in the U.S. Constitution. And it’s one that most U.S. gun-owners blithely refuse to believe, even when it’s pointed out to them. To most gun-owners, the Second Amendment is unbreachable, especially when it comes to international treaties like the forthcoming Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states: “He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….”

We constantly come across comments from American gun-owners, in Internet blogs and in response to articles, that the U.S. Senate will never be able to pass a Treaty such as the ATT. The argument made is, invariably, that, because 2/3 of the Senate is required to ratify a treaty, one like the ATT will never be ratified by the U.S.

Therefore, we are told we can all rest assuredly that the protections provided by our Second Amendment would not be in jeopardy, even if an ATT were to be enacted.

This —the 2/3 Senate majority— is our Constitution’s “loophole.”

And it could be the means to nullify our Constitution. The loophole relates to the process of “norming”, a concept which our Founding Fathers never had to deal with, or even envisioned, when they wrote the law of the land that guarantees us the right to private firearm-possession, and all those other rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

In his paper “The Second Amendment and Global Gun Control, Joseph Bruce Alonso, an attorney in Georgia, shows in great detail, just how the process of norming can create a mechanism to erase the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. He does not address the Arms Trade Treaty because his paper was written prior to the very notion of an ATT.

He discusses the UN’s attempts at global firearm-prohibition, and the multitude of legal conflicts this brings about. Alonso acknowledges that, “In the United States, acceptance of a treaty is ratification by the Senate. By signing, a sovereign state does indicate an intention to ratify or at least consider and abide by a treaty….” But, he also notes:

“if a treaty conflicts with the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court will hold that the treaty is not binding because it violates the United States Constitution. If the same conflict came before an international court, the international would hold that the treaty was binding. These competing legal systems are on a road to conflict.”

Then, Alonso adds the following:

“The United States Constitution clearly anticipates the United States federal government entering into treaties, but does not appear to have anticipated the extent to which treaties would have domestic ramifications….[T]he desire to end all private gun ownership worldwide is a final goal of many international law actors. This desire is often hidden or lightly shrouded, but is sometimes flaunted….Based on the intensity of disapproval aimed at the United States, one expects…politics will push in the direction …to end private gun ownership….The ways in which the rights of private United States gun owners could be infringed are endless. Clearly, a final goal of eliminating private gun ownership [the UN’s agenda] would violate the Second Amendment.”

So, the biggest obstacle to overcome for global firearm-prohibition to succeed is our Second Amendment. Alonso provides numerous scenarios that could plausibly occur to get around this:

“The first way is the possibility that the President of the United States signs [a treaty]…Signature by a United States President would indicate to the international community that the United States intends to abide by the gun control laws, with or without ratification by the Senate.”

Note that final phrase, “…with or without ratification by the Senate.”

So much for a 2/3 Senate majority vote needed in order for U.S. citizens to be subject to the provisions of a Treaty meant to disarm them—along with the rest of the world!

According to David Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, in their paper “The Human Right of Self-Defense” (Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, Vol 22, Number 1 (p. 56-57):

“While it is unlikely that a severely restrictive international gun control treaty could be ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate, there are many mechanisms by which unratified treaties can work their way into U.S. law. For example, some eminent international disarmament experts have taken the position that the president of the United States may announce that a treaty has entered into force, and thereby become the law of the United States even if the U.S. Senate has never voted to ratify the treaty [emphasis ours]. The United States Supreme Court has cited unratified treaties (and even an African treaty), and various contemporary foreign law sources, as guidance for interpreting United States constitutional provisions. Likewise, other scholars, writing in a UN publication, argue that United Nations gun control documents (notwithstanding the fact that the documents, on their face, have no binding legal effect) represent “norms” of international law.”

Alonso further addresses the problem of conflict between international treaties and the U.S. Constitution. The role of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in resolution of such conflicts is of pivotal importance when a case is presented in international courts. Alonso concludes: “…an American citizen who is protected by the Second Amendment could not assert this right as a protection in an international court.”

Kopel, Gallant and Eisen elaborate further on that point in their paper: “Attorney Joseph Bruce Alonso has detailed how the theories being developed by IANSA [International Action Network on Small Arms] and its allies would allow American manufacturers, governments, or gun owners to be sued in foreign courts.”

That means you —or any of us— could be prosecuted by an international court with all our protections asserted in the Bill of Rights thrown down the drain!!

How many believe that, in this firearm-hostile world, any of us would prevail in such a lawsuit?!

Americans had better pay heed to this very real Constitutional loophole, because those who don’t may be in store for a very rude awakening! Times have changed since the Founding Fathers drafted our unique document called The Constitution of the United States, and it appears clear that proposed international law (e.g. an ATT) may infringe upon the American Right to Bear Arms, and all the other rights guaranteed within it, without any need for a Senate vote.

Is this a potential loophole that President Obama—our country’s most anti-gun president—might take advantage of?

About the authors:
Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne D. Eisen practice optometry and dentistry, respectively, on Long Island, NY, and have collaborated on firearm politics for the past 20 years. They have also collaborated with David B. Kopel since 2000, and are Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute, where Kopel is Research Director. Most recently, Gallant and Eisen have also written with Alan J. Chwick. Sherry Gallant has been instrumental in the editing of virtually all of the authors’ writings, and is immensely knowledgeable in the area of firearm politics; she actively co-authored this article.

Almost all of the co-authored writings of Gallant, Eisen, Kopel and Chwick can be found at http://gallanteisen.incnf.org/, which contains more detailed information about their biographies and writing, and contains hyperlinks to many of their articles. Their recent series focusing on the Arms Trade Treaty can be found primarily at http://gwg.incnf.org/ . Respective E-Mail addresses are: PaulGallant2A@cs.com, JoanneDEisen@cs.com, AJChwick@iNCNF.org, Sherry.Gallant@gmail.com

VIDEO: Canadian dad arrested over daughter’s gun drawing

Friday, February 24th, 2012

VIDEO and Original Story VIA:  Sun News Canada

February 24th, 2012

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

Police arrested a Kitchener, Ont., father outside his daughter’s school because the four-year-old drew a picture of him holding a gun.

Jessie Sansone told the Record newspaper that he was in shock when he was arrested Wednesday and taken to a police station for questioning over the drawing. He was also strip-searched.

“This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school,” he said.

Officials told the newspaper the move was necessary to ensure there were no guns accessible by children in the family’s home. They also said comments by Sansone’s daughter, Neaveh, that the man holding the gun in the picture was her dad and “he uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters,” was concerning.

Police also searched Sansone’s home while he was in custody. His wife and three children were taken to the police station, and the children were interviewed by Family and Children’s Services.

Sansone’s wife, Stephanie Squires, told the newspaper no one told them why her husband had been arrested.

“He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them, ‘You’re making a mistake.'”
Several hours later, Sansone was released without charges.

 

VIDEO: Phil Watson of IAPCAR on Canadian TV

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Original Story VIA:  Sun News Canada

Kris Sims recaps the top 5 moments from CPAC in Washington DC.

[kml_flashembed publishmethod=”static” fversion=”8.0.0″ movie=”untitled.swf” width=”400″ height=”300″ targetclass=”flashmovie”] [/kml_flashembed]

 

 

 

 

Gun Ownership Skyrockets in India; 2nd to U.S.

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012
Original Story VIA:  Opposing Views
Submitted by Mark Berman Opposing Views on Feb 21, 2012

The era of Gandhi-like peaceful protests in India is over — the Hindu nation is now second in gun ownership in the world.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Indians own about 40 million guns, second only to the United States and our roughly 300 million guns. GunPolicy.org reports that there are three guns for every 100 people in India compared to 89 guns for every 100 people in the U.S.

Experts say rising crime and rising income has led to the explosion of weapons.

“Having a gun 24/7 is a necessity,” said gun owner Vikramjit Singh. “And an expensive weapon is a status symbol. You can’t flash just any old gun around.”

India has very strict gun laws, so 85% of the weapons in the nation are unregistered Saturday-night specials that are thought to be responsible for 90% of gun murders.

Indians feel more guns will make them safer, given that the country’s police-to-population ratio is among the lowest in the world. Gun foes, though, believe that thinking is flawed.

“Are we not paying for the rising gun violence in India?” asks antigun activist Binalakshmi Nepram, secretary-general of Control Arms Foundation of India. “It is a wrong perception that one needs a gun for security.”

U.S. Must Stand Its Ground on U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

Original Article VIA:   The Heritage Foundation

By
February 21, 2012

The final Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was held last week. The purpose of this PrepCom was to adopt rules of procedure for the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, which will be held in New York July 2–27. This conference is intended to complete the negotiation of the ATT and thus open the treaty for signature and ratification. The outcome of the PrepCom makes it even more vital for the U.S. to establish its red lines and stand its ground before and during the July conference.

The Conference Will Make Decisions on the Basis of Consensus

When the Obama Administration announced in 2009 that it would support the negotiation of an ATT, it did so with an important caveat: The treaty conference had to operate “under the rule of consensus decision-making,” meaning that a formal objection from any national representative to the chair on any matter of substance prevents agreement. But the U.N.’s draft rules of procedure allowed two-thirds majority voting on all matters of substance except the adoption of the final treaty text, as well as on amendments to the rules themselves. This opened the way for the July conference to amend the rules by a two-thirds majority and then to adopt the treaty by a similar majority, over any U.S. objection.

When the PrepCom considered the draft rules of procedure, the U.S. and a number of other nations urged that all matters of substance at the July conference be subject to a strict consensus requirement, while other delegations—including Mexico—supported the U.N.’s weaker proposals. In the end, the PrepCom adopted rules that require the July conference to “take its decisions, and consider the text of the Treaty, by consensus.” In other words, the U.S. will not be limited to an up-or-down vote on the final treaty text. Instead, it will have the opportunity throughout the July conference to object to and block progress on any portion of the ATT that it finds unsatisfactory.

The Conference Will Be Held Mostly in Closed Session

At the July conference, the U.S. will be pressed to accept an unsatisfactory treaty. One way to counter this is to use the conference to show that the U.S. is not the only nation that has concerns about the effectiveness and scope of an ATT. But if the conference is to serve this purpose, it must be public. If it is not, other nations with concerns will be able to hide behind any U.S. objections in the final plenary session.

Before the PrepCom, the U.N. planned to hold only the conference’s plenary meetings and meetings of its Committee of the Whole in public. Unfortunately, the PrepCom did not significantly alter the relevant provisions of the draft rules of procedure, and thus most of the July conference will be open only to national delegates, intergovernmental organizations, and U.N. officials, not to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In general, diplomatic negotiations should not be open to NGOs, which do not have the legitimacy of representatives of democratic governments. But the closure of most of the July conference’s sessions means that the objections of most nations will receive little publicity; thus, the attacks of the activist NGOs that support the ATT is likely to be concentrated on the United States.

The Dilemma the U.S. Faces in the Negotiations  

The U.S. strategy so far has been to try to avoid playing the role of treaty spoiler, on the grounds that this will prevent the U.S. from serving as a rallying point for the activist NGOs and nations that support the ATT. This strategy will be difficult to use at the July conference, where the consensus requirement and the number of closed sessions will place the U.S. in the position of having to object repeatedly and in private to unsatisfactory treaty provisions. If the U.S. does not object, the treaty will be adopted by consensus. If it does, it will be depicted as the treaty spoiler.

One press report quotes a senior U.S. official as stating that the U.S. wanted decision-making by consensus so that it would have the ability to “block a weak treaty.”[1] If this report is accurate, then the U.S. dilemma is acute: The stronger the U.S. tries to make the treaty, the more the U.S. will have to use its power to block consensus on weaker versions, and the more it will be depicted as the spoiler. Furthermore, many nations will demand a treaty that they will characterize as strong but the U.S. will find unacceptable. For example, Mexico wants to impose a national gun and ammunition registry on the United States.

In the same report, the U.S. official also states that vetoing the final treaty at the July conference is “the nuclear option,” i.e. the last resort. Signaling the U.S.’s unwillingness to veto is poor negotiating strategy, but, more fundamentally, the official’s statement implies that the U.S. is going to try to get a treaty it can accept. This means the U.S. has to have clear red lines for the July conference, as well as the willingness to uphold them during the negotiations by breaking consensus. It will not be easy for the U.S. to get what it wants if it is unwilling to use the “nuclear option” or to play the role of spoiler. 

What the U.S. Must Do

The PrepCom chair originally proposed that the U.N. be entrusted with the responsibility of editing the views of the member states on an ATT into a background document to be distributed in advance of the July conference. The PrepCom sensibly rejected this idea, which would have allowed the U.N. to skew the terms of the conference debate, and it has instead invited U.N. member states to submit statements of no more than 1,500 words on the provisions of an ATT by March 31. The U.N. Secretary-General is to compile these statements into a background document for the July conference.

The U.S. must use this opportunity to establish its red lines for the July conference. In particular, the U.S. should make clear in its March submission that it will not accept the inclusion of hunting and sporting weapons or ammunition in the ATT. Nor will it accept treaty language that impinges on rights protected by the Second Amendment, requires any new internal controls, legitimates arms trafficking by dictators or terrorists, inhibits its ability to support friends and allies, or creates any additional burdens for U.S. manufacturers, importers, or exporters.

Finally, the U.S. must state clearly that if the July conference does not reach consensus on a treaty text, it will resist any effort by one or more nations to break away from the U.N. process and negotiate an ATT outside of that process. The national interests of the U.S. would be best served by having no ATT, because any ATT negotiated through the U.N. will begin by assuming that dictatorships and democracies possess the same sovereign rights. The only advantage the U.N. process has is that the U.S. has the power to say no. The U.S. should use that power to limit the damage the ATT does to its interests, the rights of its citizens, and the responsible conduct of diplomacy.

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

Death of a Long-Gun Registry

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012
Original Story VIA:  National Review

Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities.

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue, and their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality never worked that way. Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene, they have not been registered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered crime guns are left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

The statistics speak for themselves. From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveals that the weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the homicides with firearms, and that about three-quarters of the identified weapons were not registered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases — that is, only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides — was the gun registered to the accused. As most homicides in Canada are not committed with a gun, the 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.

To repeat, during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.

The problem isn’t just with the long-gun registry. The data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that, since the handgun registry was started in 1934, it has been important in solving a single homicide.

Looking at just long guns shows that since 1997, there have been three murders in which the gun was registered to the accused. The Canadian government doesn’t provide any information on whether those three accused individuals were convicted.

Nor is there any evidence that registration reduced homicides. Research published last year by McMaster University professor Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what other academic studies have found: “This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.” There is not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists that has found a significant benefit from gun laws. A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians already understand this, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.

The problem isn’t just that the $2.7 billion spent on registration over 17 years has produced no arrests, it is that the money could have been used to put more police on the street or pay for more health care or cut taxes. An extra $160 million a year pays for a lot of police or doctors or teachers.

Take police. Assuming each officer is paid $70,000 per year, $2.7 billion would pay for almost 2,300 officers annually. Academic research by one of us (Lott) indicates that adding that many street officers would reduce violent crimes in Canada by about 1,800. Registration isn’t getting Canadians any of this.

And the costs of running the registry aren’t just the $2.7 billion, since that excludes enforcement costs and individual compliance costs. The first step that police in Canada take in investigating a violent crime is to see if their suspects are licensed gun owners. But when Canada has 6.4 million registered gun owners, and police accuse only nine people of homicide each year whose registered guns were found at the scene of a crime, the return seems as close to zero as possible. It is also claimed that registration protects police officers’ safety, but homicide against Canadian police officers is actually up 20 percent since the long-gun registry started, compared with the rate during the previous decade. And more important, not a single police officer has been identified as being killed by someone with a registered gun.

Gun-control proponents have worried that scrapping the long-gun registry after so much has been invested in it would be a waste — “a $2 billion bonfire,” in the words of Gatineau member of Parliament Françoise Boivin. Unfortunately, that money is already wasted, and the registry costs kept growing. It costs about $100 million a year to operate. Instead of burning up more money, Canada can spend it on things that will actually do some good.

— John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, third edition, 2010) and Gary Mauser is professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.

Conservatives and enthusiasts cheer the end of the long-gun registry (Canada)

Friday, February 17th, 2012

Original Article Via:  The National Post

By Jeff Davis

OTTAWA — The Conservative government says its MPs will celebrate after a historic vote to end the long-gun registry Wednesday evening, despite vehement opposition to the move in Quebec and much of urban Canada.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told reporters Wednesday, hours before the vote, that the government’s actions are long overdue.

“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved one Canadian life,” he said.

“It criminalizes hard-working and law-abiding citizens such as farmers and sport shooters, and it has been a billion-dollar boondoggle left to us by the previous Liberal government.”

Quebec MP Maxime Bernier said MPs and gun-rights advocates will celebrate together Parliament Hill after Wednesday evening’s vote.

Meanwhile, opposition MPs and supporters of the registry are expected to say the government’s actions are a step backwards, because the registry has been useful in keeping the country’s streets safe.

Bill C-19, the Ending the Long Gun Registry Act, is guaranteed to pass through the House of Commons, thanks to the Conservative government’s majority, but more political wrangling is expected to follow.

“It criminalizes hard-working and law-abiding citizens such as farmers and sport shooters, and it has been a billion-dollar boondoggle left to us by the previous Liberal government.”

Quebec MP Maxime Bernier said MPs and gun-rights advocates will celebrate together Parliament Hill after Wednesday evening’s vote.

Meanwhile, opposition MPs and supporters of the registry are expected to say the government’s actions are a step backwards, because the registry has been useful in keeping the country’s streets safe.

Bill C-19, the Ending the Long Gun Registry Act, is guaranteed to pass through the House of Commons, thanks to the Conservative government’s majority, but more political wrangling is expected to follow.

Liberals in the Senate say they have no intention of “rubber stamping” the bill, which they say needs time for sober second thought.

Meanwhile, the government of Quebec, meanwhile, has plans to take legal action against the Harper government for withholding Quebec-specific data, which is essential to its plans to launch a provincial registry.

The federal law will end the requirement for lawful gun owners to register their long guns, and it relaxes rules around selling or transferring guns. Gun licences for individuals will still be required, and the registry for restricted and prohibited firearms such as handguns will be maintained.

Gun control has been ferociously debated in Canada for decades, particularly since the Montreal massacre of 1989, when a gunman shot and killed 14 women with a rifle. This event prompted the Liberal government of Jean Chretien to tighten gun controls and create Canada’s first mandatory long-gun registry in 1995.

Hunters and sport shooters reviled the registry, and dismantling it became a central plank of Reform, and later, Conservative party policy.

Liberal Senate leader James Cowan said while the Liberals in the Red Chamber have no intention of filibustering Bill C-19, they’ll make sure it gets the serious consideration it needs.

Cowan said the Tories have taken five months to move Bill C-19 through the House, taking their time with an issue that pleases their base and is a good fundraising tool.

“We’re not going to rubber stamp anything,” he said. “But certainly it won’t be in Senate longer than in House.”

Cowan said he expects Bill C-19 to arrive at the committee on legal and constitutional affairs sometime in March, at which time the committee will hear testimony, which could continue for weeks.

“We want to make sure all sides are heard,” he said. “We are determined to use the powers we have to make sure the committee has a full hearing.”

The Harper Conservatives now have a commanding majority in the Senate, so while Liberal senators may succeed in slowing down the passage of C-19, it will ultimately pass.

According to Bill C-19, all data pertaining to non-restricted firearms will be deleted.

Michael Patton, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, said the gun registry’s central database is located in an RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. Since only data for non-restricted guns will be removed, the officials are still deciding how to carefully sift out what to delete and what to keep. He said he could not predict exactly how long the deletion of all long-gun data would take.

Patton said officials with the Canadian Firearms Program have not requested any additional money or outside assistance for this task.

Once the bill is finally passed into law, Quebec will immediately seek an injunction from the courts to halt the destruction of the registry data.

Mathieu St-Pierre, a spokesman for Quebec Public Security Minister Robert Dutil, said Quebec has the full intention of taking legal action against the federal government if it does not cough up the data it wants.

Appearing at a parliamentary committee in November, Dutil made clear his province’s desire to maintain the national gun registry. If it is scrapped, he said, Quebec should be given the data it paid for.

St-Pierre said Quebec can’t take legal action against the federal government until the bill passes. The only thing that will stop them now, he said, is if the government voluntarily transfers the Quebec-specific data from the long-gun registry.

“We will go before the courts if Bill C-19 passes, and if the (Quebec) government does not receive the data, our government lawyers already have their strategy in mind,” he said.

Jeff Larivee, whose wife was killed in the 1989 Montreal massacre, is a spokesman for the Coalition for Gun Control. He said he and many other Quebecers feel outrage at the Harper government’s determination to dismantle laws that, for many, serve as a memorial.

“I feel frustrated and I feel sad for my wife,” he said. “We are continually facing a government with an ideological belief that guns should not be controlled.”

While some lawyers doubt the constitutionality of provincial firearms registries, Toews has said that provincial registries are indeed legal.

“It’s certainly possible for a province to create a gun registry under property and civil rights,” he told Postmedia News in January. “I don’t see a constitutional issue there.”

Nevertheless, Toews said he is “certainly not advocating” provincial registries be set up.

Tony Bernardo is Canada’s leading advocate for gun owners, as executive director of the Canadian Sports Shooting Association and a lobby group called the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action.

“I’ve been working for 15 years to make this happen,” he said. “It’s a big deal for me.”

Bernardo says scrapping the long-gun registry is already a “defining moment” in Canadian people power.

“What you’re seeing here, this is democracy in action at its finest,” he said. “Millions of people spoke up and said we don’t want this, and the government responded and now it’s gone.”

Postmedia News

More “gun hysteria” from the Toronto Star

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012

Original Story Via:  Matt Gurney, National Post · Jan. 31, 2012

In an “exclusive” report that ran over the weekend, the Toronto Star breathlessly reported on its front page that, according to information available through the federal gun registries, residents of the Greater Toronto Area own … guns. Why, people on your own street might have one! Readers were reminded of newspaper articles from the height of the Cold War, with titles like, “Is your neighbour a communist?” Everyone, please … remain calm.

In the Toronto area, there apparently are 263,000 privately held non-restricted guns (shotguns and rifles), 62,818 restricted guns (most handguns and some rifles) and 26,315 prohibited guns (snub-nosed pistols and military-grade weapons). That’s at least 352,000 icky firearms, right in the Star’s backyard. For a paper still trying to wrap its mind around a Harper majority and a Rob Ford mayoralty, it’s gotta be a tough pill to swallow.

The article, of course, hinges on the imminent scrapping of the longgun registry, after which the 263,000 non-restricted guns will no longer be tracked by the government, even though the 53,000 holders of nonrestricted licences will still require those licences to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition. Experts are trotted out by the Star to tut-tut about public safety, including former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant, now working with the Coalition for Gun Control, who says the number of gun owners in and around Toronto prove firearms ownership “isn’t a rural-urban issue,” but instead about “safety, and suicide prevention.”

Wrong on every count.

Firearms ownership has always been an urban vs. suburban-rural issue, and that’s especially true in Toronto. In 2010, the Star itself released a colourcoded map of the GTA showing the percentage of the population that had a firearms licence, and the results were what you’d expect – the figures were very low in downtown Toronto, much higher in the outer suburbs at the fringes of the GTA, and somewhere in the middle at all points in between.

Nor is there any truth that the gun registry, or rates of gun ownership, has any statistical connection to the suicide rate, which has been generally flat for decades, far longer than the registry has been around. There has been a gradual decline, but it 20 years before the registry was put in place. Any success that gun control has achieved in getting Canadians to stop shooting themselves is an empty victory – they’re still committing suicide, they’re just using pills, a bridge or subway car instead. Not exactly a triumph for gun control.

Then, of course, there is the safety issue. The Star’s own earlier reporting has found that the rate of Torontonians with firearms licences over the last several years has been generally stable in and around Toronto – some minor drop in the rate of gun ownership inside the city of Toronto generally has been offset by a rise in the number of guns in the suburbs. And yet, all the same, it was just last November that the Star was reporting that the rate of homicide in Toronto had dropped 50% in only a few short years. Indeed, they noted that, “Toronto is on its way to becoming the safest it has been in a quarter of a century.”

That’s great news. But isn’t it worth noting that that victory for safety was against a backdrop of steady gun ownership in a city with hundreds of thousands of firearms? They might also note that Toronto’s suburbs, despite their higher rate of gun ownership, have much lower murder rates – per capita rates, note, not just the total number of individual homicides – than Toronto itself.

But that isn’t the issue the Star is really delving into. The statistics about gun ownership and suicide trends and murder rates are just background noise to the main issue – the belief of many, particularly in urban areas, that gun ownership is itself asocial, dangerous and indicative of a deranged mind.

If not for the social stigma of gun ownership, no one would care how many of their neighbours might have an old rifle or two locked up in their basement somewhere. They’d only care that they lived in a safe neighbourhood – and almost everywhere in the Toronto area is safe.

It’s certainly true that with the registry scrapped, there will still be murders and suicides committed with firearms. But that was true even with the registry. If this is the best defenders of the status quo have to offer, the registry can’t be scrapped quickly enough.

Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up “Illegal” Guns

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up “Illegal” Guns

Original Story Via NPR

January 28, 2012

In Mexico, where criminals are armed to the teeth with high-powered weapons smuggled from the United States, it may come as a surprise that the country has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Law-abiding Mexicans who want a gun to defend themselves have no good options. Either they fight government red tape to get a legal permit, or they buy one on the black market.

After an outbreak of violence, one embattled community in northern Mexico called Colonia LeBaron has begun to ask if it’s time for the country to address its gun laws.

A farming town about 130 miles southwest of El Paso, Texas, in the border state of Chihuahua, Colonia LeBaron was founded by breakaway Mormons from the U.S. who wanted to practice polygamy. Today, most residents hold dual citizenship, speak English and retain close ties to the U.S. A few still practice plural marriage.

A Community Arms Itself

The militancy of Colonia LeBaron began on May 5, 2009, when kidnappers seized a 16-year-old boy and demanded a $1 million ransom.

Though he was released unharmed, the townsfolk came together and formed an anti-crime group to take a stand against the rampant kidnappings and extortion. Their leader was Benjamin LeBaron.

But on July 7, 2009, close to 20 men showed up at Benjamin LeBaron’s house, according to his older brother, Julian LeBaron.

“They wanted to terrorize everyone into never opposing them,” Julian LeBaron says. “They dragged Benjamin out of his house, and [his brother-in-law Luis Widmar] came to help him.”

Then, he says, the criminals took the two men a couple of miles down the road and shot them.

The cold-blooded murders of Benjamin LeBaron and Luis Widmar galvanized the community, Julian LeBaron says. It prompted them to take a stance that is familiar to Second Amendment advocates in the U.S., but one that is taboo in Mexico.

“I think there would be less violence if there were more guns, in the sense that I could barge in here and do whatever I want, knowing that this guy doesn’t have a gun,” says Jose Widmar, the brother of slain Luis.

Today, if the gangsters return, the LeBaron colony is locked and loaded.

They have an advocate in their cousin Alex LeBaron, a 31-year-old Chihuahua state deputy with national aspirations. He’s a burly, baby-faced politician who attended college in New Mexico and served in the U.S. Navy. His own father was killed in a carjacking.

If Alex LeBaron makes it into the federal congress, his most passionate issue will be changing Mexico’s convoluted gun laws.

“We’re Mexican citizens 100 percent, and we have the right to bear arms, and we’re going to keep fighting for that right as long as it takes,” he says.

‘Complex And Expensive’ To Buy A Gun

Alex LeBaron and some friends have gathered at a nearby gun club to plink away at steel duck silhouettes. Joining a sport shooting club is one way to avoid the aggravation of obtaining an individual permit.

Though the Mexican Constitution permits gun ownership, the government strictly limits that privilege as a response to the violence of the Mexican revolution and to uprisings in the 1960s when students looted gun stores in Mexico City.

“In the black market, it’s very easy to acquire mostly American-made weapons here in our country, but through the legal process it’s … very complex and expensive,” Alex LeBaron says.

A citizen who wants a permit for a weapon must apply to the Mexican military — a process that can cost upward of $10,000. Then they pay to have the permit renewed annually. The military further regulates the caliber of weapon, how many guns a person can own, how much ammunition they can buy each month, and where in the country they can take the weapon.

The government abolished the last private gun store in 1995. Today, the only legal gun store in the country is in Mexico City, guarded and operated by the armed forces.

“In Mexico, the laws effectively don’t allow you to purchase weapons,” says Dr. Oscar Urrutia Beall, a longtime member of the Paquime Shooting Club. “There are some weapons they sell in Mexico City, but the paperwork is difficult. Here, they won’t let us buy a gun, but they let us own a gun. It’s an incongruity, a failed law.”

A Gunfight With The Mexican Army

On the LeBaron family farm outside of town, workers pack red chilies for shipment to New Mexico. The family also grows alfalfa, pecans and cotton on irrigated fields bordered by the windswept foothills of the Sierra Madre mountains.

The LeBarons now have a reputation of being well-armed and not afraid to use their weapons.

One night, in October 2009, a gunfight erupted between the LeBaron brothers and a squad from the Mexican army. The LeBarons claim the soldiers came to the front gate and did not identify themselves. Fearing they were kidnappers, Alex says, the family opened fire.

“In the middle of [the] dark, sometimes, it’s better to shoot and ask questions later,” he says.

One soldier was killed. One LeBaron brother and another farmer were charged with murder, but the judge ultimately dropped the charges because the evidence had been tampered with.

These days, things have quieted down in Colonia LeBaron. Some people say it’s because of the soldiers garrisoned in town. The LeBarons maintain it’s because the criminals know the community will fight back.

And if more communities were allowed to defend themselves, says Alex LeBaron, Mexican organized crime would be on the run.

“I think Mexico’s way past that revolutionary uprising point in our history,” he says. “I think we’re ready to come into the 21st century and be part of this whole global process of modernization. And this is one of them — gun laws.”

Other Citizens Express Reservations

But do Mexicans want gun laws similar to those in the U.S., where buying an assault rifle can be as easy as buying a beer?

Basilio Sabata Salaices is the mayor of the municipality where Colonia LeBaron is located. “Here, guns are very restricted,” he says. “But I see in the U.S. many things happen because youth don’t know how to use guns. I don’t think we should make it easier to possess a weapon, as in the U.S.”

Beto Renteria is a prominent businessman in Nuevo Casas Grandes, whose wife was kidnapped three years ago and returned after he paid ransom.

“There are lots of Mexicans who have never shot a gun,” he says. “It could be dangerous putting a gun in the hands of an inexperienced person; we could hurt someone.”

Fernando Saenz is the leader of a citizen’s militia in Ascension. The town made headlines last September when a mob beat two suspected kidnappers to death.

Like many Mexicans in regions plagued by violent crime, Saenz owns an illegal, unregistered weapon — in his case, a 9 mm handgun.

“Look,” Saenz says pensively, “I think guns are not advisable. I think what the government should do is put honest, well-trained people in jobs to impart justice.”

If these three responses are any guide, the LeBarons’ crusade to revise gun laws is at odds with a certain cultural ambivalence toward firearms, at least among law-abiding Mexican citizens.

Alex LeBaron is undeterred. “I have to stress very strongly that if the federal government, the state government or the local government cannot protect you from the cartels or any criminal groups, we should be able to protect ourselves. That’s the bottom line,” he says.

Asked if the community is openly flouting federal gun laws, he replies: “Yes. We have to.”

The Mexican secretary of National Defense, charged with enforcing gun laws, declined to comment for this story.

The director of a pro-gun website called Mexico Armado said there is no popular movement at the moment to liberalize the nation’s gun laws. Perhaps, he added, that’s because anybody who wants a weapon in Mexico — be they a good guy or a bad guy — has no problem getting one.

Fight fire with fire, NGO tells women

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

VIA: Hurriyet Daily News

ANKARA – Radikal

A Turkish non-governmental organization (NGO) is set to give free shooting courses at a gun range for women who were subjected to domestic violence.

Şefkat-Der has suggested arming women as an effective way to combat domestic violence. “The state should grant licensed, tax-free arms to women under vital threat to defend themselves in emergency situations and train them in close combat and weapons use,” said Hayrettin Bulan, the head of Şefkat-Der.

Purchasing guns in Turkey is easy, and it would serve to deter potential killers if women also posessed firearms, he said, adding they were also going to appeal to the Parliament, ministries and political parties to enact a motion that includes their suggestion to arm women.
The organization plans to appeal to Parliament, ministries and political parties to enact a motion that includes their suggestion to arm women, Bulan said.

“Shouldn’t women be able to protect themselves when there are no police or guards standing next to them? What is wrong with saying that women should learn how to operate arms to save their own lives by training on a range beforehand?” Bulan asked.

Şefkat-Der raised similar suggestions Nov. 25 on the Struggle against Violence toward Women Day and other occasions.

“You can engage in acts aimed at wounding your husband with a knife or a gun, such as hitting or cutting across his wrist, so as to make it difficult for him to abuse you again…If you believe you will not be able to deliver yourself from death by causing injury, then you can also opt to neutralize [killing or critically wounding] the potential killer before he kills you,” Şefkat-Der said.

Figures from the We Will Stop Women’s Murders platform show about 160 women in Turkey were murdered by relatives such as family members, lovers or spouses, in 2011.

A total of 179 women are known to have been raped in 2011 and another 70 allegedly committed suicide, although three of them were later found to have been murdered as well.

The rate of women murdered by their husbands had increased by nearly 200 percent between 2009 and 2010, according to reports.

December/28/2011

CCRKBA Hails 11 Co-sponsors of Bill To Halt U.N. Funding

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

VIA: PR Newswire

BELLEVUE, Wash., Dec. 9, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today offered thanks and congratulations to 11 members of Congress who have signed on as co-sponsors to legislation that would withhold funding from the United Nations and prevent the United States from adopting any treaty that threatens national sovereignty or abridges the Second Amendment firearms rights of American citizens.

“The Second Amendment secures and protects our individual right to keep and bear arms,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh submitted his bill on Wednesday, and now he’s been joined by 11 of his colleagues who deserve recognition.”

Co-sponsors to HR 3594 are Texas Congressmen Joe Barton, K, Michael Conaway and Kenny Marchant; Georgia Reps. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Paul C. Broun and Phil Gingrey; North Carolina Rep. Howard Coble, Florida’s Bill Posey, Iowan Steve King, South Carlina’s Jeff Duncan and Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp. All are Republicans.

“CCRKBA staff has been directly involved in Walsh’s effort,” Gottlieb noted, “because the long-running campaign to adopt a global gun control scheme at the United Nations has gathered momentum under the Obama administration. We do not think it is any coincidence that global gun prohibitionists have ramped up their effort during the same period that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two rulings affirming that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms.

“At a time when our constitutional freedoms are at stake,” Gottlieb concluded, “the only way to prevent their erosion by international treaty is to put in place the legislative mechanism to cut the U.N. off financially. We’re delighted that Walsh and nearly a dozen of his colleagues have the vision and intestinal fortitude to pursue that preventative measure. International gun grabbers need to keep their hands off of our Constitution, and out of our pockets.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

SOURCE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

CCRKBA Applauds Walsh Legislation to Withhold United Nations Funding

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

BELLEVUE, Wash., Dec. 7, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today applauded Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh’s introduction of legislation to withhold funding from the United Nations and assuring that the United States does not adopt any treaty posing a threat to national sovereignty or that abridges the firearms rights of American citizens as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Rep. Walsh’s bill, developed with the cooperation and assistance of CCRKBA staff, would block U.N. funding unless the President certifies that the world body “has not taken any action to restrict, attempt to restrict, or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of individuals…to keep and bear arms, or abridge any of the other constitutionally protected rights” of U.S. citizens.

“The United Nations’ effort to adopt a global gun control initiative needs to be reined in,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “For too many years, bureaucrats in the United Nations have become far too cozy with international gun prohibition organizations, and Congressman Walsh’s legislation seems the best way to get their attention. We’ve been delighted and honored to be part of this effort.

“It is an insult to United States sovereignty,” he added, “that the U.N. would be entertaining such measures while enjoying this country’s hospitality at its headquarters in New York City. It is the greatest irony, and perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy, for the United Nations to be discussing any treaty that might threaten our Second Amendment, because it has been the United States, with its citizen soldiers and our constitutional right to keep and bear arms that has come to the world’s rescue not once, but twice in global conflicts.

“When diplomacy fails, it is time to close our checkbook,” Gottlieb said. “The Bush administration opposed such a treaty, but the Obama administration is moving forward with discussions on an international Arms Trade Treaty. It is up to Congress to put the brakes on such efforts and protect our national sovereignty, which has been protected and defended for more than two centuries because our citizens have the right, and the resources, to defend it.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

SOURCE  Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

RELATED LINKS
http://www.ccrkba.org

http://www.prnewswire.com

Iraqi Government Seeks To Employ “Gun Control”

Monday, November 21st, 2011

Full Story From:  Radio Free Europe

BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government has presented a bill to parliament banning the possession of weapons by anyone except military and state security personnel, RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq (RFI) reports.

Abbas al-Bayati, the deputy chairman of the parliament’s Security and Defense
Committee, told RFI today that the first and second reading of the bill have
been completed and the deputies are expected to make a final vote on the bill
next week.

He said the bill lays down strict requirements for licensing the possession of arms to ensure that the state and its respective security organs have a monopoly on the use of weapons.

Bayati added that the bill also provides for severe penalties against those guilty of arms smuggling into and out of Iraq or involvement in illicit arms trafficking.

He underlined that the message of the legislation is “no return to sectarian violence and no return to paramilitary outfits with harsh punishment for those
who take the law into their own hands.”

Bayati said the army, police, and security agencies alone will be responsible for protecting the people, whose sole duty is to cooperate with those forces and report any suspicious activity to the authorities.

But political analyst Ibrahim al-Sumaidaie told RFI that “acts of violence and assassinations are often perpetrated by individuals employed as bodyguards of
state officials or planted in the security and military establishment by hostile groups.”

Sumaidaie cited the Interior Ministry’s internal affairs department saying its achievements against terrorist groups have been undermined by a serious
infiltration of its ranks by insurgents.

Major General Muhammad al-Askari, a media adviser to the defense minister, told RFI that existing controls will be tightened to stop and punish any abuses by members of the armed forces and security agencies.

Askari said there is a general inspectorate at each ministry as well as other instruments like the Internal Affairs Department that serve as a deterrent against the unlawful use of arms by government or security service personnel.

Sources told RFI that there were an estimated 7 million weapons held illegally in Iraq at the height of the sectarian violence in the country in 2007.

Taiwan gun group joins global fight to bear arms

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

TAIPEI TIMES:  Taiwan gun group joins global fight to bear arms

(Click above link to read the story from the Taipei Times)

The Taiwan Defensive Firearms Association (TDFA) earlier this month became a member of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), a global gun rights association working to protect and expand the ability to keep and bear arms around the globe.

In a press release, IAPCAR said the TDFA was joining 16 other groups from nine countries on five continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian gun rights.

“The IAPCAR coalition defending gun rights worldwide continues to grow and we are proud to have Taiwan join with us,” IAPCAR executive director Philip Watson is quoted as saying.

“The Taiwan Defensive Firearms Association is an important addition in our battle to protect the human right of self-defense,” Watson said.

The TDFA is reported to be Taiwan’s highest profile gun advocacy association, which according to its Web site opened its office in Taipei in May last year, with Boris Yang acting as chairman.

Its Web site states that it is a group of gun policy researchers who wish to allow qualified Taiwanese to legally bear firearms to “provide them with the ability to refuse to be a victim and to make most of Taiwanese middle class become a steady power of the social order.”

The organization says that while police and the judicial system are the first line of defense, law-abiding citizens bearing arms constitute the second line.

The group says authorities tend to embellish statistics about serious crime offenses and “unscrupulous” and “corrupt” officials often allow serious offenders to get away unpunished.

“When the time is right, we wish to apply the method of referendum to change this defenseless civilian situation that has last [sic] for decades […] To let Taiwanese qualified citizens to have the option to freely own semi-automatic defensive firearms,” it says.

The TDFA’s goal is to see 35 percent of the Taiwanese population, or 8 million people, own a gun and 25 percent of the population, or 5 million people, obtain a license to carry concealed firearms.

As an umbrella organization, IAPCAR opposes any UN Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and an individual’s ability to keep arms and serves as a vehicle to unify gun advocacy groups against “international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns” against “grave threats” including crime, civil unrest and terrorism.

According to IAPCAR’s Web site, it has more than 650,000 members and supporters in the US.

TAIWAN GUN RIGHTS GROUP JOINS IAPCAR

Friday, October 21st, 2011

FOR IMMEDEATE RELEASE:  10/21/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) has added the Taiwan Defensive Firearms Association (TDFA) as a member of international gun rights associations working to protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms around the globe. TDFA joins 16 other groups from nine countries on five different continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian arms rights.

“The IAPCAR coalition defending gun rights worldwide continues to grow and we are proud to have Taiwan join with us,” said IAPCAR executive director, Philip Watson.

“The Taiwan Defensive Firearms Association is an important addition in our battle to protect the human right of self-defense,” Watson observed.

“It is a great honor to become one of IAPCAR’s members.” said, Boris Yang, TDFA Chairman.

As Taiwan’s highest profile self-defense advocacy association, TDFA also runs the popular website, (http://www.tdfa.tw).

Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) established IAPCAR to serve as a vehicle to unify arms rights groups against international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns.

“IAPCAR strongly opposes any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and the individual right to keep arms,” said SAF’s Versnel.

CCRKBA’s Gottlieb added, “Organizations around the globe feel the urgent need to protect the individual right to defend oneself and one’s family against grave threats, including crime, civil unrest and terrorism. IAPCAR is dedicated to preserving this human right.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations.  As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.  The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

U.S. REP TO U.N. SAYS OBAMA WANTS SENATE TO RATIFY ARMS TREATY

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Obama administration “is seeking advice and consent” for Senate ratification of an international small arms treaty, and also supports the inclusion of small arms in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms learned today.

The disclosure is found in the text of a statement to the First Committee of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, delivered by Laura E. Kennedy, the permanent United States representative to the Conference on Disarmament. CCRKBA obtained a copy of the statement.

In her statement, Kennedy recalls that the United States in 1997, under the Clinton administration, signed the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials. However, the Senate never ratified the document, and there was no interest in pushing the treaty during the Bush administration. American firearms rights activists have steadfastly fought against inclusion of small arms in any such treaty.

“More than half the members of the Senate have already advised Barack Obama that they will not ratify any treaty that threatens the Second Amendment rights of American citizens,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “so it’s not clear why he is – according to Kennedy’s revealing statement – suddenly seeking Senate ratification of this measure.

“If the Obama administration is this eager to push adoption of a treaty that’s been gathering dust for eleven years,” he added, “one can only imagine how fast this president will want to see action on the proposed global Arms Trade Treaty.

“This suggests that Obama fears he may be a one-term president,” Gottlieb stated, “and he feels a compelling need to finally bring his anti-gun agenda to the surface and push it through. We have known all along about his desire to bind this country to an international gun control scheme, and now Kennedy’s statement confirms that.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations.  As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.  The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

INDIAN GUN RIGHTS GROUP JOINS IAPCAR

Monday, October 10th, 2011

INDIAN GUN RIGHTS GROUP JOINS IAPCAR

FOR IMMEDEATE RELEASE:  10/10/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) has added the National Association for Gun Rights India (NAGRI) as a member of international gun rights association working to protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms around the globe. NAGRI joins 15 other groups from eight countries on five different continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian arms rights.

“It is heartening to see groups like NAGRI who are passionate and active for civilian arms rights joining our coalition,” said IAPCAR executive director, Philip Watson.

“In the wake of the tragic Mumbai massacre, Indians are rethinking their country’s repressive gun restrictions and see the need to empower citizens. Self-defense is a civil right; the denial of this right should not be tolerated,” Watson observed.

“NAGRI is delighted to be associated with IAPCAR. All pro-gun associations and civil rights organizations should join hands,” said Rakshit Sharma, a representative of NAGRI.

As India’s highest profile gun rights advocacy association, NAGRI also runs the popular online forum, Indians for Guns (http://indiansforguns.com).

Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) established IAPCAR to serve as a vehicle to unify arms rights groups against international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns.

“IAPCAR strongly opposes any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and the individual right to keep arms,” said SAF’s Versnel.

CCRKBA’s Gottlieb added, “Events over the past decade have emphasized the urgent need to protect the individual right to defend oneself and one’s family against grave threats, including crime, civil unrest and terrorism. IAPCAR is dedicated to preserving this human right.”

-END-

Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

“Swiss voters have rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership, final results show.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12441834

TIME TO LEAVE THE LAW-ABIDING ALONE. JUST REGISTER THE CRIMINALS.

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

Sporting Shooters Association of NZ (SSANZ)

Media Release; 13th September 2010

TIME TO LEAVE THE LAW-ABIDING ALONE. JUST REGISTER THE CRIMINALS.

The stated aim of gun laws is to reduce gun crime, reduce injury and save innocent lives. This is supposed to occur because imposing legal restrictions on the ownership of guns by ordinary law-abiding citizens will – by reducing the number of legal guns in circulation – make it harder for those who are “mad or bad” to get guns.

Yet decades of restrictive gun laws have not reduced violent crime but have sharply increased it .

We all need to understand the following;
1) Current gun laws are futile and wasteful. They do not deter or prevent criminals, or the seriously mentally disturbed, from obtaining illegal weapons or from committing violent crimes, no matter how tough and restrictive they are.
2) The ONLY thing any properly administered gun law CAN actually do is ensure that only the law-abiding, only “fit and proper persons” get LEGAL access to LEGAL firearms.
3) No gun law, no matter how tough, can compensate for misfocussed, poor or erratic enforcement of the large number of existing laws already designed to prevent criminal activity.
4) No gun law can ever compensate for a mental health system that allows potentially violent persons to remain in the community unsupervised and often unmedicated.
5) In a democracy, the only legitimate reason for having any law is that it confers a perceived greater social or community good for the (apparent) lesser price of a minor restriction (an “inconvenience”) on personal liberty. Traditional gun laws fail this vital test.

What needs to be done to halt and then reverse the present dramatic rise in violent crime? What focus, what new laws are needed?

Traditional gun control laws that only target the law-abiding firearms owner have no place in any new approach and need to be replaced with something that actually works. There is now conclusive evidence that the real relationship between the number of legal guns in a society and violent crime is inverse (that is, as the number of law-abiding citizens with guns rises then the number of violent crimes – including gun crimes – falls). This explains perfectly why traditional gun control efforts have failed and why simplistic if well-intentioned laws intended to reduce the number of legal guns in society, have made the problem of violent crime worse.

There is only one logical and effective way of dealing with the problem, not just of gun violence (which in NZ is only 1% of our violent crime) but of ALL violence and that is to ensure that police, corrections and mental health focus on where the problem actually lies. What is needed to control our rising violent crime rate is not a list of law-abiding gun owners but a much smaller list of criminals and violent persons (a Prohibited Persons Register) for police, mental health and corrections to focus on and properly control.

Indeed, it seems absurd that the key organisations responsible for keeping law and order do not already compile and use such a list to share important information and to efficiently focus their activities.

A Prohibited Persons Register, sensibly written and properly enforced, would rapidly reduce all crime while allowing the present Minister of Police to deliver on her pledge not to penalise law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.

For the first time in over half a century the law-abiding would finally be rewarded, would have their rights respected and protected, while those who choose to engage in crime and other serious anti-social activities would – at long last – start to see their rights selectively eroded. Isn’t that how it should always have been?

Dr Lech Beltowski
President,
SSANZ
Contact; 09-523-5429 or 021-105-2210.

Knesset C’ttee Demands Gun Rights for Jews of Judea/Samaria

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/139619

Opposition sees Harper’s hand in gun-control supporter’s exit

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Debate looms in Parliament on private member’s bill to scrap registry

By Laura Stone, Postmedia News
August 19, 2010
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Opposition+sees+Harper+hand+control+supporter+exit/3416623/story.html

Melbourne shootings prompt gun control call

Monday, August 16th, 2010

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/16/2983762.htm

Diggy takes aim at Pistol PC – Rights group lobbies against tighter arms rules

Monday, August 9th, 2010

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100809/jsp/frontpage/story_12789361.jsp

Irish gun owners can now shoot intruders

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

New bill is welcomed by police, rural groups

By JAMES O’BRIEN
IrishCentral.com Staff Writer

Published Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 5:51 AM
Updated Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 10:26 AM

Irish homeowners can now legally use guns to defend themselves if their homes are attacked under new legislation.

The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into “where it should always have been”, say top Irish police.

The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable”.

The new bill was published by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern yesterday. Under the bill homeowners will be allowed to use “reasonable” force against intruders to defend themselves, others or their property. This includes lethal force, depending on the circumstances.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern stated that house owners could use guns in self-defense, especially if the intruders were armed but said it would ultimately be a matter for the courts to resolve.

The bill also clarifies that a house owner will not be required to retreat from an intruder. and that intruders injured as a result of reasonable force won’t be able to sue the house owner.

“The bill is welcomed because it aims to clarify the entitlements of a homeowner when faced with the situation where an uninvited intruder has entered the home,” AGSI vice-president Dan Hanley told the Irish Examiner.

“The bill aims to shift the balance of rights back to the homeowner where it should always have been. It is intolerable a homeowner should be compelled to retreat in front of an intruder who has entered the home and who may have malign intentions towards the homeowner, the family or the home owner’s property.”

Hanley added: “It is ridiculous to suggest the bill, which attempts to redress a serious legal imbalance, would provide a license to kill or a ‘have-a-go’ charter for homeowners, the vast majority of whom will continue to act with good sense and in a peaceful way.”

Minister Ahern also dismissed the suggestion the bill was a “license to kill”. He stated it merely allowed for lethal force provided it was justifiable.

Rural Link, the national network of community groups in rural Ireland welcomed the bill, saying it was “sensible legislation giving much needed clarity to homeowners on their rights when confronted by intruders”.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties however, stated it would inspect the bill to establish that it was “human-rights compliant”.

The need for new legislation became evident after an intruder, John Ward, was shot dead while on the land and dwelling area of Mayo farmer, Pádraig Nally.

Nally was convicted of manslaughter, but his conviction was later overturned after a public outcry.

Burglaries in Ireland increased from 23,600 in 2007 to 26,800 in 2009. Violent burglaries rose from 255 to 363 in the same period.

Originally Appeared: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-gun-owners-can-now-shoot-intruders–98813794.html

As Arms Trade Treaty Meeting Concludes, U.S. Frustrations Grow

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

Posted By Theodore Bromund On July 23, 2010 @ 12:00 pm In American Leadership | 1 Comment

Once again, America’s interests, and the rights of her people, are at risk. And once again, a United Nations treaty is the source of this danger—the U.N Arms Trade Treaty [1], to be specific.

The Preparatory Committee for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty is nearing the end of its second and final week of meetings.

The Preparatory Committee is not engaged in negotiating a treaty, but in defining what should be included in the treaty when it is negotiated. As a result, many of the statements by the participating states are very general. But enough has been said to show that the Obama Administration’s decision to participate only on the basis of “consensus”—which it justified as a way to ensure that the final treaty is satisfactory—was ill-advised.

Right off the bat, Belgium, speaking for the EU and acknowledging that “a certain number of countries still retain concerns [2],” called on those with concerns to show “engagement and flexibility.”

Nigeria—speaking for the African Group—also struck [3] a familiar note: that of self-interest cloaked in principle. It called on the committee to recognize “the special responsibilities of major arms producers and the special rights of arms importing States.” In plain language, that means that the African Group wants a treaty that imposes all the responsibilities on the United States, and gives its own members “special rights.” Among those rights—supposedly based on Article 51 of the U.N. Charter—would be, as Nigeria stated, a guarantee that all U.N. member states (be they dictatorships or democracies) have the right to import all the arms they want.

This, not surprisingly, was also Iran’s view. To quote it in full, it demanded [4]:

In view of my delegation, the most important principle that the ATT shall be based upon is the sovereign and inherent right of States to acquire, manufacture, export, import and retain conventional arms, technology and know-how for their self-defense and security needs in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

That demand summed up the delusory beliefs on which the Arms Trade Treaty process is based. It is supposedly intended to create basic standards for the international sale or transfer of arms—with the goal of keeping these arms out of the hands of terrorists, insurgents, and mass murderers. But because it’s proceeding through the U.N., with the U.N.’s universal membership, the treaty has to be based on the assumption that all U.N. member states are law-abiding and democratic.

This creates a bit of a mystery, because it leaves unexplained exactly how terrorists, insurgents, and mass murderers get arms. The answer, of course, is that states like Iran supply them. But you will not hear the U.N. saying that.

What you will hear is a lot of U.S. frustration. Throughout the committee’s meeting, the U.S. has repeatedly called for the other delegations to abandon their fantastic positions and embrace some semblance of reality.

On July 15, the U.S. said it would block the treaty if hunting weapons were included. As the plenary sessions resumed on July 21, the U.S. intervened twice in the discussion, both times to urge delegates to focus on what was realistic and achievable.

Sadly, there is not much sign the U.S.’s words have had any effect. That same day, Mexico—speaking for eight other Central and South American nations—called for a treaty that would cover: [5]

All types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials[,] hence permitting the development of the concept [of] “conventional arms” together with the future with technological developments of the armaments industry . . . Internal transfers which . . . might have an impact on other States should also be part of an ATT.

In other words, Mexico and its compatriots want a treaty that covers all weapons that exist now or are invented in the future, all parts of weapons, all technology related to all weapons, and which applies to gun sales inside the United States.

That is just the kind of demand that the U.S. has repeatedly warned the committee against making—both because it is unrealistic and would create a completely unverifiable treaty, and because it immediately raises extremely serious questions about the implications of the treaty on rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. That is not a shock. But in view of the public efforts of the U.S. to encourage sanity, it is regrettable nonetheless.

Originally appeared: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/23/as-arms-trade-treaty-meeting-concludes-u-s-frustrations-grow/print/

South Africa: Black gun association to sue government

Friday, July 16th, 2010

The Black Gun Owners Association on Friday said it will sue the government for R3.2 billion for compensation over lost jobs since the new Firearms Control Act came into effect in 2004.

A total of 800 gun shops closed down, 10,000 people lost jobs, and over 40,000 blacks were refused firearm licences between 2004 and 2010, the association’s chairman Abios Khoele told a press briefing in Johannesburg.

“This government is hell-bent on disarming black people because they’ve made so many service delivery promises to them which they have not fulfilled. They are scared that if blacks are armed they will turn on the government.”

The organisation represented close to 700,000 people, black and white, in the gun industry, he claimed. This figure included owners of gunshops who were losing business, former owners who were liquidated, people who applied for gun licenses after paying for the training and who passed the competency test, but were refused licenses, and those who applied to renew licenses but were refused.

The lawsuit would be filed before the end of July.

Khoele said the central firearms registrar — responsible for issuing firearm licenses — was not giving applicants tangible reasons for the refusals.

“In letters that they sent to applicants refusing the licenses all they said is that they must find alternative means of protecting themselves. We, as the organisation, we want those alternative means unpacked because criminals are armed to the teeth out there and are attacking people on a daily basis.”

Original Story

Gun rights group wants PM to probe FLA resignation

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

Gun rights group wants PM to probe FLA resignation

Damion Mitchell
Assistant News Editor

The National Gun Rights Association (NGRA) wants the Prime Minister to probe the resignation of the Board of the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA).

The five-member authority resigned last Wednesday with immediate effect causing a suspension in the issuance of gun permits.

They decided to step aside following a letter from the National Security Minister Senator Dwight Nelson raising concerns about the number of gun permits being granted, which they considered to be offensive.

In a release this morning, the National Gun Rights Association (NGRA) said it was alarmed at the sudden resignation of the FLA board.

Shawn Johnson, the association chairman says his group has been pleased with increased efficiency of the FLA.

According to Johnson, in recent times more firearm licenses have been approved allowing more Jamaicans to be better able to protect themselves and their properties.

The former FLA board members say they have only and would only issue firearm licenses where the applicants meet the stipulated requirements.

However, Senator Nelson is maintaining that he is not comfortable with the increase in the number of firearm permits being issued.

For the first five months of this year, the FLA issued 1,197 gun permits up from the 621 for the first five months of 2009.

The increase in the number of gun permits coincided with an increase in the call for people to legally arm and protect themselves as the murder tally climbed.

The Firearm Licensing Authority was established in 2005 by an Act of Parliament to regulate the issuing and revocation of gun permits.

Originally Appeared: http://www.go-jamaica.com/news/print_article.php?id=20412

US Supreme Court extends gun rights

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Page last updated at 15:52 GMT, Monday, 28 June 2010 16:52 UK

The US Supreme Court has restricted the rights of state and city governments to enforce controls on gun ownership.

The US’s highest court ruled by 5-4 that a ban on handgun ownership in Chicago was unconstitutional.

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.

The ruling could potentially change laws on gun ownership in many of the US states.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years in the US.

The ammendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Two years ago, the court ruled a ban on handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional – declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defence in the home.

But Washington is a federal city, with a unique legal standing. Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago, Illinois, and its suburb of Oak Park, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years.

In Monday’s ruling on that challenge the justices said the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states”.

Correspondents say the ruling will be seen as a blow to efforts to reduce the role of firearms in American life.

The justices seen as the more liberal – Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor – voted against the latest ruling.

The case was brought by four Chicago residents as well as local firearms rights activists and the National Rifle Association.

The latest Supreme Court decision does not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, but it orders a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling – leaving little doubt that the laws will eventually be overturned.

The NRA welcomed the “landmark decision” of the court.

“The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision,” said NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre.

Originally Appeared: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10438332.stm

Arroyo urged to suspend issuance of gun permits

Friday, June 25th, 2010

By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 18:22:00 06/21/2010

MANILA, Philippines – Alarmed by the shooting deaths of three journalists last week, a gun control advocate has called on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to save lives during her remaining days in Malacañang by holding the issuance of permits to carry firearms in public.

Gunless Society founder Nandy Pacheco on Monday said Arroyo should immediately issue an executive order suspending the processing of permits to publicly bear firearms citing the string of gun-related violence that occurred after the lifting of the nationwide election gun ban.

“We’ve got to save lives now. In her remaining few days, President Arroyo should help reduce the risk. We’re trying to prevent people from killing other people,” said Pacheco.

“She should do it now,” he said.

Pacheco made the statement as he expressed concern over the shooting of journalists since Monday last week. The killings happened days after the five-month election-related gun ban lapsed on June 9.

“Once the gun ban ended, the issuance of permits to carry firearms is back to normal. Criminals are able to mix with ordinary people. The point is, this is disturbing. You can be shot anytime,” he said.

Pacheco also challenged President-elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, a known gun enthusiast, to push for a gun control law during his term.

Originally Appeared: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100621-276818/Arroyo-urged-to-suspend-issuance-of-gun-permits

J’can Diaspora and US to have gun control talks

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

BY COREY ROBINSON
Sunday Observer reporter

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Tighter screening of containers leaving the US for Jamaica will be among the topics for discussion when members of the Jamaican Diaspora meet with the US State Department in coming weeks.

Chairman of the Jamaica Diaspora US north-east Region Patrick Beckford said the group had been “quietly lobbying our politicians, congressmen and senators, especially for ex-raying the containers that come to Jamaica”.

“We have received a very positive response from them. In fact, when I go back and meet with the state department, that is one of the subjects that I will address,” he said.

He was speaking at the inaugural Observer Press Club forum, held at the newspaper’s head offices in Kingston on Thursday.

Police sources have said that all of the major gun finds have indicated that the weapons originated in the United States, where the Second Amendment to that country’s constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms. This has proven problematic for local authorities who spend millions trying to detect and seize illegal weapons shipped to the island.

Beckford, who noted that the second amendment was a “touchy issue”, said tighter screening is one of the few measures that can be used to stop the guns entering the island.

He, however, could not give a specific date for the meeting with the State Department, offering only that it was slated for either “next week or the week after”.

In April, Prime Minister Bruce Golding cited the shipment of guns from the United States as one of the main contributors to Jamaica’s growing crime problem, and said negotiations were underway to stem the problem.

“A resolution before the United Nations for an international convention to restrict the illegal trafficking in small arms is still the subject of negotiations.

“In the meanwhile, we intend to renew our efforts to strengthen bilateral co-operation with the US with a view to addressing the flow of illegal guns from the US to Jamaica with the same vigour that we seek to apply to the flow of illegal drugs from Jamaica to the US,” said Golding, during his contribution to the debate on the 2010 national budget.

But member of the Diaspora advisory board, David Mullings, while admitting that the US’ second amendment legislation contributes to the prevalence of illegal firearms in Jamaica, said it is not the prerogative of that country to curb the problem.

“We of the Diaspora will not be able to lobby the US to change their laws. What we need to focus on is what laws we can change in Jamaica,” he said.

“We need to figure out why people want guns, and how do we prevent them from getting the guns, and how do we make them afraid to even use the guns,” he said, adding that even if guns were prevented from entering Jamaica from the US, criminals would find alternative means of supply through Haiti and other countries.

Sylbourne Sydal, member of Facilitators for A Better Jamaica (FFBJ) in the United Kingdom, added that Jamaican authorities should look at shutting down the supply of bullets and not necessarily the influx of illegal guns, as a primary means of controlling gun crimes.

He also said more emphasis should be placed on reintegrating deportees to the island so they will not resort to crime as an option for survival.

Originally Appeared: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/J-can-Diaspora-and-US-to-have-gun-control-talks_7723600

Arroyo urged to suspend issuance of gun permits

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 18:22:00 06/21/2010

Filed Under: Media killings, Firearms

MANILA, Philippines – Alarmed by the shooting deaths of three journalists last week, a gun control advocate has called on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to save lives during her remaining days in Malacañang by holding the issuance of permits to carry firearms in public.

Gunless Society founder Nandy Pacheco on Monday said Arroyo should immediately issue an executive order suspending the processing of permits to publicly bear firearms citing the string of gun-related violence that occurred after the lifting of the nationwide election gun ban.

“We’ve got to save lives now. In her remaining few days, President Arroyo should help reduce the risk. We’re trying to prevent people from killing other people,” said Pacheco.

“She should do it now,” he said.

Pacheco made the statement as he expressed concern over the shooting of journalists since Monday last week. The killings happened days after the five-month election-related gun ban lapsed on June 9.

“Once the gun ban ended, the issuance of permits to carry firearms is back to normal. Criminals are able to mix with ordinary people. The point is, this is disturbing. You can be shot anytime,” he said.

Pacheco also challenged President-elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, a known gun enthusiast, to push for a gun control law during his term.

Originally Appeared: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100621-276818/Arroyo-urged-to-suspend-issuance-of-gun-permits

Gardai order audit of country’s gun owners

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

13 June 2010
By John Burke, Public Affairs Correspondent

Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has ordered an audit of the country’s gun owners, amid concerns over the ‘‘large number’’ of unregistered firearms across the country.

Firearms groups were informed about the audit on June 2, the same day that 12 people were shot dead in Cumbria by taxi driver Derrick Bird. The audit will be conducted in ‘‘early July’’, according to correspondence seen by The Sunday Business Post.

It will be carried out by garda superintendents in each district nationwide, under legislation originally devised to tackle organised crime gangs.

The nationwide audit is aimed at people who own licensed guns, but may have lapsed in re-licensing some or all of their firearms.

Anyone found in possession of an unlicensed gun faces the prospect of their ‘‘firearms being seized or may even render them liable to prosecution’’, according to the correspondence.

The audit will follow National Firearms Awareness Day, which is designated for this Wednesday, when gardaí will be making themselves available at garda stations nationwide to advise on how to obtain permits under the new three-year licensing system.

Prior to the new licence system being launched, there were more than 230,000 firearms licensed in the state, of which more than 177,000 were shotguns.

‘‘Large numbers of firearms owners have still not yet re-applied for their new three year firearm certificates,” according to the letter from the gardaí to gun groups. All old gun licences expire at the end of this month.

The government is engaged in a dispute with gun groups over the new licensing regime, as well as recent garda decisions over the issue of permits for certain handguns.

The state last week said it would oppose a High Court application by a pistol shooter, Patrick Herlihy, who has challenged a District Court judge’s refusal to grant him firearms certificates for six pistols – the judge refused to grant certificates for the guns on the grounds of their lethal nature.

Originally Appeared: http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/gardai-order-audit-of-countrys-gun-owners-49882.html

Renew your firearms licence via your iPhone

Monday, June 21st, 2010

There’s an app for everything

By Robert Blincoe

18th June 2010 13:47 GMT

Sussex Police plan to allow gun owners to renew their firearms licences using an iPhone app.

The app will be part of a suite allowing the public to access news, appeals and other services form their iPhone.

The technology push is intended to save £3m, freeing up valuable cop time, but means firearms applicants won’t have to see the police face-to-face, at the form-filling stage. There will still need to be an interview and home inspection down the line.

This step hasn’t gone down well following so soon after Derrick Bird’s shooting spree through Cumbria, when he killed 12 people. The Cumbrian forces’ firearms procedures are being reviewed as a result.

Gun control campaigners including Mothers Against Murder and Aggression and the Gun Control Network have spoken out against the plan.

Currently firearms applications require applicants to fill out the paperwork at pre-arranged police station meetings.

The mobile phone app proposals will be discussed with forces across England and Wales at the Sussex Police’s social media conference in Brighton on June 25.

Original Appeared: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/18/iphone_firearms_licence/

No gun ban extension – PNP

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Article posted June 06, 2010 – 01:27 AM
The nationwide gun ban will be lifted on June 9, and stricter measures on gun control will be put in place instead of extending the gun ban’s effectivity, the Philippine National Police (PNP) announced Friday.

The policy was announced during the PNP’s second gun summit in Camp Crame on Friday, where participants conceded to just supporting stricter measures on firearms control.

“There will be no gun ban extension. The policies on carrying guns before the election period will be reinstated,” said PNP chief Director General Jesus Verzosa.

The gun ban went into effect on January 10, after the Commission on Elections ordered it in place as part of implementing election law as applied to the recent May 10 polls.

Nearly 3,000 individuals, including some 200 government employees, have been apprehended during the period.

Some 300 representatives from various sectors who were present in the summit were unable to come to a general agreement on whether the gun ban should be extended or not.

Summit participants finally agreed to the lifting of the ban if stricter measures on gun ownership will be enforced.

The proposed stricter gun policies include limiting the security details for politicians and VIPs (Very Important Persons), and stricter requirements for those who are seeking a Permit to Carry Firearms Outside Residence (PTCFOR).

“They also agreed to support our proposal for stricter penalties for those who will be caught possessing unlicensed firearms or guns with expired licenses,” Verzosa added.

A post-gun summit will likewise be held next week, where the proposals for stricter gun control will be finalized.

Some sectors, including the PNP itself, earlier called for an extension in the effectivity of the gun ban, citing the reported decrease in the incidence of crime.

Earlier in the summit, the PNP presented a survey it commissioned which showed majority of Metro Manila residents want the gun ban extended.

Based on the survey, 73.8 percent of the 400 respondents from the National Capital Region (NCR) believe the total gun ban should remain in force after June 9.

The NCR survey is part of the ongoing nationwide study targeted to involve 4,400 respondents, the results of which are set to be released mid-June.

The survey likewise showed that 81.5 percent of the respondents agreed that police checkpoints should remain in place even after elections, as majority of the respondents believe it resulted in the reduction of the incidence of crime.

PNP spokesperson Chief Supt. Leonardo Espina earlier said the police agency is holding a stakeholders’ summit to tackle proposals for “responsible gun ownership” by civilians.

But presidential front-runner Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, who practices target shooting himself as a hobby, expressed apprehensions on the total gun ban.

“It’s a nice imagery for you to say total gun ban, where nobody has guns, but there is a fine print: Nobody who follows the laws will have guns,” Aquino said.—JMA/JV, GMANews.TV

Originally appeared: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/192767/no-gun-ban-extension-pnp#

CHR chief unconvinced of gun ban

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
By MARVYN N. BENANING
June 7, 2010, 4:12pm

The country’s human rights watchdog is not convinced that a gun ban would solve the problem of the proliferation of firearms.

Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chairwoman Leila M. de Lima told participants of the National Firearms Control Program Consultative Summit at Camp Crame last Friday that the commission “supports the proposition that the current gun ban should be extended, but only to the extent that it paves the way towards a radical change in the enforcement of gun control.”

She said: “On one hand, a total gun ban smacks of slackness on the part of law enforcement agencies to carry out the existing laws on firearms control. Totally banning guns is an over-simplified solution to addressing the proliferation of firearms. It goes well beyond the scope of existing government regulation on gun ownership and use.”

The issue also covers areas where firearms are used with impunity for extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, clan warfare and even for repression of political adversaries.

De Lima said what is needed is for the Philippine National Police (PNP), government and concerned parties in general to “consider a more balanced and thoughtfully designed plan curbing gun-related crimes.”

While CHR respects gun ownership, the right of all citizens to security of their life and property must be protected, De Lima said.

She argued that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right in the country since the Supreme Court has already ruled that gun possession is an exception rather than the rule and that it is a “mere privilege, not a constitutional right.”

No such right is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

This being the case, “the right to bear arms cannot be considered as absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of the State’s police power. All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general welfare.”

Public interest requires the application of police power but the employment of this power requires that it not be unduly oppressive upon individuals.

“The question now is whether rash criminality and human rights violations can be curbed by enforcing a gun ban, particularly when and where it is needed. This is particularly essential in places where extralegal killings, enforced disappearance and torture are rampant,” De Lima said.

“There must be serious efforts to disarm and dismantle private armies. Governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns. If this requires a limited gun ban in these areas, then the ban should continue as to these places,” she added.

“Be that as it may, the CHR does not consider a total gun ban reasonable or feasible. Effective control is still the key, and this includes not only enforcing existing regulations on gun control, but the enforcement of gun control checkpoints as in the case of the Election Gun Ban,” De Lima said.

“We propose that the gun ban should be extended only for the purpose of transitioning into a stronger policy of effective gun control. Gun control naturally must include many other operations, such as intercepting illegal shipments of high-powered firearms, confiscation of unregistered guns, dismantling of private armies and many more. But the gun ban, as currently enforced, provides a key ingredient as well to gun control,” the CHR chief stressed.

“We agree with pro-gun advocates that persons who legitimately own guns and who are permitted to transport the same eventually should not be prevented from doing so. We only ask that the proponents to the gun ban carry out the necessary preparations in enforcing checkpoints once the Election Gun Ban ceases and new gun control mechanisms are in place, such as issuing the essential guidelines for inquiring into the possession of firearms from motorists and other persons in transit, and the procedure in checking for permits and licenses,” De Lima said.

Copyright 2010. Manila Bulletin


Originally Appeared: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/260979/gun-ban-won-t-solve-problem-chr-chief

PNP stresses need for effective gun control

Friday, June 4th, 2010

By Vernadette Joven (philstar.com) Updated June 04, 2010 04:00 PM

MANILA, Philippines – Philippine National Police chief Director General Jesus Verzosa stressed the importance of having an effective implementation of the gun control program.

Speaking at the opening ceremonies of the Gun Summit this morning in Camp Crame, Quezon City, Versoza said now is the perfect time to have an efficient gun control program in the country.

“This initiative comes at a most significant time when we are freshly reeling from the successful culmination of a 150-day election period during, which we strictly implemented a nationwide firearms prohibition under the same spirit and intent of this National Firearms Control Program (NFCP) that we seriously look forward to achieve,” Versoza said.

The PNP chief said that the main objective of the summit is to review the implementation of various components under the NCFP, which was established last year to address the growing concern over the proliferation of loose firearms.

After the assessment, the NCFP will focus on five components, namely rationalized firearms control, provisions of security detail, legislative agenda, accounting, inventory and registration of firearms. and continuing law enforcement actions.

“By hosting this event, the PNP seeks to facilitate a lively and open exchange of opinion to energize our common desire for effective gun control,” Versoza added.

Representatives of the Department of Interior Local Government and the National Police Commission were also present in the summit.


Originally Appeared: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=581305&publicationSubCategoryId=200

David Cameron opposes ‘knee-jerk reaction’ on gun laws

Friday, June 4th, 2010

BBC News

Thursday, 3 June 2010

David Cameron has said there should not be a “knee-jerk reaction” to changing the laws on gun ownership after 12 people were shot dead in Cumbria.

The prime minister said everything must be done to make sure it “cannot happen again”, but existing controls were among the “toughest” in the world.

He was speaking after Home Secretary Theresa May said the government would “consider all the options” on gun laws.

But she told MPs it would be “wrong to react before we know the full facts”.

Mr Cameron, who is to visit Cumbria on Friday, told journalists at a joint press conference with Canada’s PM Stephen Harper “today is a day for mourning and prayer”.

He said his thoughts were with all those affected by the “absolutely horrific events” which had left a “close-knit” group of communities “deeply torn”.

‘Flick a switch’

The government would do everything it could to help “mend the hurt” caused by the incident, he said but while it was right that laws and practices on gun ownership should be looked at, he said there was not always “an instant legislative or regulatory answer”.

He stressed that gun licences had to be regularly reviewed and the procedures for doing so were strict.

“Of course we should look at this issue but we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front. We do have some of the toughest legislation in the world,” he said.

He added: “You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head and this sort of dreadful action taking place.”

It is not yet known what prompted Derrick Bird to drive around shooting people – leaving 11 injured as well as the 12 dead.

Mrs May told MPs it was “right and proper” to have a debate after the killings but warned it would be “wrong to react before we know the full facts”.

She said more than 100 detectives were taking part in the investigation and would be looking into Bird’s history, his access to firearms and the “motivation for his actions”. Police have confirmed that he had licences for the two weapons he used – a shotgun and a .22 rifle.

A number of government departments were standing ready to provide support to local police, the local authority and charities, she said.

She said MPs’ thoughts would go out to the “family and friends of those so senselessly killed and injured” in the shootings and paid tribute to the work of the emergency services.

‘Extremely rare’

“Undoubtedly, yesterday’s killings will prompt a debate about our country’s gun laws, that is understandable and indeed it is right and proper,” she said.

“But it would be wrong to react before we know the full facts. Today we must remember the innocent people who were taken from us as they went about their lives, then, we must allow the police time to complete their investigations.”

She said once the police the government would “enter into, and lead, that debate” adding: “We will consider all the options.” MPs would get the chance to take part before the summer recess, she said.

Mrs May added that mass killings were “extremely rare” in Britain but said: “That doesn’t make it any the less painful, and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to stop it happening again.”

“Where there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them. Where there are changes to be made, we will make them. ”

Shadow home secretary Alan Johnson said these were “dark times for a strong a close-knit community” and sent his condolences to those affected by the “tragic” events.

He agreed there should be no rush to change firearms laws but said they should be reviewed.

Prohibition call

He said there should be a focus on whether follow-up checks on licence holders were “adequate” and whether there should be a greater role for GPs and the NHS in assessing whether gun owners’ mental health was deteriorating.

Lib Dem MP John Pugh questioned how a “simple taxi driver could possibly justify the apparently lawful possession of such a formidable and devastating arsenal” and how killings could be prevented in future. Mrs May said it would not be right for her to comment before the police inquiry was completed.

Labour’s John Woodcock – the MP for neighbouring Barrow and Furness – asked for any review to look at, not only firearms legislation but at local mental health services and to look at “how an apparently reserved member of the community suddenly snapped and was capable of such evil deeds”.

And Labour MP Chris Williamson said the government should not “rule out the possibility of the complete prohibition of private ownership of firearms as the best way of preventing future atrocities like this”.

However Labour MP Kate Hoey Britain already had “the most stringent gun control laws in Europe”. And Conservative MP John Whittingdale said the “vast majority” of British gun owners shared the “dismay” about the events in Cumbria.

Originally Appeared: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10225885.stm

The government would do everything it could to help “mend the hurt” caused by the incident, he said but while it was right that laws and practices on gun ownership should be looked at, he said there was not always “an instant legislative or regulatory answer”.

He stressed that gun licences had to be regularly reviewed and the procedures for doing so were strict.

“Of course we should look at this issue but we should not leap to knee-jerk conclusions on what should be done on the regulatory front. We do have some of the toughest legislation in the world,” he said.

He added: “You can’t legislate to stop a switch flicking in someone’s head and this sort of dreadful action taking place.”

It is not yet known what prompted Derrick Bird to drive around shooting people – leaving 11 injured as well as the 12 dead.

Pro-gun group aims for looser laws

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 08:56:00 05/31/2010

Filed Under: Police

MANILA, Philippines—A group of gun enthusiasts is countering police calls for an extension of the election gun ban with its own call for laws liberalizing gun ownership.

The Gun Enthusiasts Confederation of the Philippines (GECP) argued that loosening restrictions on firearms ownership would, in fact, deter violence.

GECP president Perry Punla said the group’s “total pro-gun” proposal would prevent rather than spur inappropriate gun use because gun owners would be held liable in court.

Punla also called for simplified regulations on gun ownership. He said a gun owner’s license should likewise be recognized as a permit to bear arms, doing away with the current requirement for firearm owners to obtain separate permits—to own guns and to carry them.

Punla likened a deadly weapon to a car: “To those saying that guns are deadly, that’s the wrong notion because what’s deadly is the person who handles the gun. This is not different from a driver: It’s not the car that kills but the driver.”

Punla said the Philippine National Police (PNP) was undermanned and could not protect all the citizens.

The PNP, on the other hand, is calling for the extension of the gun ban beyond the election period that will end on June 9. The PNP noted that firearms had cost lives even in simple traffic-related quarrels.

At a press conference at Camp Crame last week, PNP Director General Jesus Verzosa clarified that he was not proposing a total gun ban but rather “gun control,” where people would be allowed to carry weapons but under strict controls.

He said the police organization would discuss and propose “innovations” for enhanced gun control legislation during the second National Firearms Control Summit proposed to be held on June 2.

With a report from Jocelyn Uy

Originally appeared: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100531-273062/Pro-gun-group-aims-for-looser-laws

PNP to hold summit on gun control

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

The Philippine National Police (PNP) is set to hold a gun control summit before the end of this month to determine whether or not the nationwide gun ban will either be extended or become permanent.

The gun ban is set to be lifted when the election period ends on June 9 but Director General Jesus Verzosa, PNP chief, said they have been receiving calls from various sectors to make the policy a permanent one.

“We have been receiving good feedbacks about this because they say it’s an effective deterrent to crime but let’s see . . . we still have to hold the second National Firearms Control summit for us to hear the opinions of all sectors concerned,” said Verzosa.

The gun summit is expected to be participated in by various sectors, from the academe to gun owners and gun dealers, like what happened when it was first held in Camp Crame last year.

While the gun ban implementation reduced crime incidents and election-related violence, the proposal to extend or to make the policy permanent is expected to be opposed by advocates of responsible gun ownership and gun dealers.

“We want to hear every opinion especially from those who support the proposal and from those who would oppose it. We hope we would come up with a middle ground on this,” said Verzosa.

Based on the present gun ban policy, all permits to carry firearms outside residence are suspended until the election period ends on June 9. Only policemen and soldiers in uniform are allowed to carry guns outside their homes.

Nearly 3,000 people have already been arrested since January 10, with the operation resulting in the confiscation of more than 2,500 high-powered firearms and handguns.

Those arrested included 102 policemen and at least 63 soldiers. All of them are expected to be slapped with administrative charges aside from the criminal case of violating the Omnibus Election Code on illegal possession of firearms that will also be leveled against them before civilian courts.

Original link: http://mb.com.ph/node/258686

Firearms laws could cause chaos at 2012 Olympics

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

Firearms laws could cause chaos at 2012 Olympics

• Europeans miss Dorset clay pigeon event over permits
• London organisers want accreditation to double as permit

London 2012’s shooting event is heading for chaos because of Britain’s draconian firearms legislation for athletes from European countries. Some European teams have been unable to compete at a clay pigeon World Cup event in Dorset this week after failing to lodge original certificates of firearms permits with UK police long in advance.

Without having that paperwork in their possession several athletes would be in breach of their national laws to hold their firearms at home. They have also been unable to travel after they waited four to six weeks for the documentation to be handled. Indeed, in order to guarantee German athletes’ participation, that nation’s administrator was flown in to the UK by tournament officials – at a cost of £1,500 to the event – with a sheaf of athletes’ documentation for on-the-spot processing by police.

Perversely the law states that competitors from non-European Union nations need send only a copy of their certificates and, in cases where no official national registration system exists, a letter of permission from police departments suffices.

The event organiser, Peter Underhill, who is also manager of the shooting tournament at the London Olympics, told Digger: “This situation has arisen with only 350 competitors. It would take the Metropolitan Police a year to process the 2,000 people at the Olympics. We want the Home Office to relax arrangements, to tie in an athlete’s visitor’s firearm permit with the accreditation so it acts as an import licence for the firearm.” So far the Home Office has shown no enthusiasm for the request.

Original article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/may/20/olympic-shooting-firearms-licences

U.S. lobbies a hurdle in Mexico drug war: Calderon

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

Calderon, who has deployed tens of thousands of soldiers and police to fight drug cartels, told Fareed Zakaria’s “GPS” program on CNN that there was resistance in Washington to Mexico’s demands that sales of such weapons be stopped.

“They (U.S. officials) say that they are facing strong opposition and there is powerful lobbies in the Congress in order to change that situation,” Calderon said in a pre-taped interview in Mexico City.

The Mexican leader added that solving the cross-border gun trafficking problem was critical to his bid to crack down on the drug-related violence that has killed 4,600 people in the past two years.

Mexico says 90 percent of the weapons used by drug gangs are bought in the United States, often legally. Mexican officials also want to see the U.S. Congress reinstate a ban on the sale of assault weapons that expired in 2004.

U.S. gun rights groups generally oppose such a restriction.

The United States is already deeply involved in Mexico’s struggle with drug gangs and has pledged some $1.4 billion over three years in a thus-far unsuccessful effort to crush cartels who ship $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.

But concerns the violence in Mexico is escalating — two U.S. citizens were shot to death this month in the violent Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez — has led top U.S. officials to pledge more assistance.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a high-level delegation to Mexico City last week for talks, underscoring the Obama administration’s concerns about the drug violence south of the border.

Washington has started to increase searches of southbound vehicles on its border with Mexico for guns and money heading to Mexican cartels.

(Writing by Paul Simao, Editing by Doina Chiacu)
Originally appeared 3/28/2010 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62R13320100328?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+International%29

Burglars make off as police take 50 minutes to attend emergency call

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Two burglars who a pub landlord confronted with a shotgun to protect his family made off after police took 50 minutes to respond to his emergency call.

By Nigel Bunyan
Published: 5:43PM GMT 07 Mar 2010

Simon Thomas, 45, initially pointed his shotgun at the raiders and later pursued them in his Land Rover.

By the time police reached The Anchor Inn at Barcombe, east Sussex, the men were nowhere to be seen.

Related Articles
Police officer attacked by her own dog after being shot by robber
Emergency calls unanswered as police deal with drinking violence
John Denham orders urgent report on Camberwell fire
Life sentence for robber who shot policewoman
Burglars spared jail despite being photographed in actMr Thomas, whose children, Toby, 14, and Holly, 12, were asleep at the time of the raid, said: “If push came to shove I would have opened fire.

“In some ways I wish I had done – to stop them. Both my children were asleep in the house and protecting them was my priority.

“I don’t want people to think I’m some gun nut, but I was prepared to do pretty much whatever it would take. I would not hesitate to do it again to protect my children and my livelihood.”

Mr Thomas, an experienced hunter with a collection of licenced guns, recalled hearing the burglars moving about outside shortly before 2am on Saturday.

“I am a firearms man and have been for 25 years, so I went to my cabinet and got out a shotgun. I couldn’t believe what was happening.

“One of them was loading the bikes into his car and the other was breaking into the conservatory. I opened the bedroom window and shouted out `Do not move – I have got a loaded gun on you`.”

Mr Thomas conned the burglars into believing he had already dialled 999 and that the police were on their way.

When they saw his shotgun they begged for their lives and started unloading their haul of stolen mountain bikes from their car.

They claimed to have thought the premises were empty.

The raiders drove off into the night as Mr Thomas lowered his gun and finally went to summon police.

He said: “I called the police and they told me they didn’t have anyone available to come over right away but to put the gun away so I did.”

A few moments later he gave chase in his Land Rover but lost the pair as they drove through Barcombe.

Sussex Police confirmed that it took them 50 minutes to get officers to the scene and that there was no trace of the offenders when they arrived despite control room staff having graded the alert as one requiring an “immediate response”.

A police spokesman said: “The call was graded for immediate response. Officers arrived as soon as possible but were responding to other calls at the time.”

The thieves were still at large last night as police continued to investigate the attempted burglary.

Originally appeared: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7393079/Burglars-make-off-as-police-take-50-minutes-to-attend-emergency-call.html

Chilean Earthquake: Locals Stand Guard with Guns

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Locals in Concepcion hunker down with guns and hand-held radios, while mobs run free and the military tries to gain traction.
By Jimmy Langman — Special to GlobalPost
Published: March 3, 2010 06:53 ETCONCEPCION, Chile – About 3,000 Chilean military troops now have a tight hold on the center of Chile’s second-largest city, located 70 miles from the epicenter of Saturday’s earthquake that devastated much of central Chile.

But food, water and medical supplies are still slow to arrive in Concepcion. And concern about one of the world’s worst earthquakes in a century quickly shifted to an even greater worry about the mass of fellow residents breaking into shops left and right.

Soon after the earthquake, many of the city’s residents began to pour onto the streets. Eventually, hundreds of poor residents in search of food broke into supermarkets on Sunday. But that soon swelled into mobs ransacking whatever they could get their hands on in the city.

“The social earthquake that has happened here in recent days has been worse [than the earthquake],” said Thomas Forende, 45, who manages a milk cooperative in the city.

Slideshow: scenes of destruction

Slideshow: day three of Chile quake

On Sunday evening around 6 p.m., a giant Lider supermarket on the corner of Prat and Maipu streets was targeted. The police at first reluctantly let some looters take away food, but when some started lugging out widescreen television sets, even laundry machines, the police stepped in with tear gas and water cannons.

Angelea Villalobos, 41, witnessed the ransacking of the Lider. As she sits amid the rubble of her 1932 home, which splattered into thousands of pieces, a coffee pot simmers over a small fire. She explains that her family has enough food to hold out for two or three more days.

Villalobos says she and her neighbors on Maipu Street remain vigilant 24 hours a day behind makeshift fences set up on each entrance to their street to keep the looters at bay. Last night, she heard bullets.

“Till yesterday, this was a lawless no man’s land,” said Villalobos.

Jose Gonzalez, 46, chief of a gas distribution service in Concepcion, shares a similar view. He and dozens of neighbors coordinate with hand-held radios and wield guns, knives and thick wooden sticks to protect their middle-class Valle Noble community about 10 minutes outside of town.

Across the street from Valle Noble, with its neat, modern homes, they watched in horror as mobs plundered a gas station and a Ripley department store warehouse. “All day, people did not take food away from Ripley, rather televisions, clothes, everything they could get their hands on. This is just thievery,” said Gonzalez.

Others like Caroline Poblete, 34, a housewife with two children, complain about the slow response from Chile’s government. “I did not support General Augusto Pinochet, but right now we could use a Pinochet,” she says in disgust.

As one Chilean news television presenter said: “Chileans in earthquake areas are asking why the press can arrive so quick and not the government.”

In a tactic reminiscent of the Pinochet era, the government has declared martial law to halt the looting. From 8 p.m. Monday to noon Tuesday, residents were prohibited from walking or driving the streets. Tuesday, martial law commenced even earlier, at 6 p.m.

Troops toting large rifles man the city’s most important and busiest steets and stand guard in front of gas stations.

Basic services are still absent in almost the entire city.

Many residents ride the streets on bicycles as they can not re-fuel their automobiles. Water service has been restored to only a few homes in the city center. Buses are arriving carrying worried family members. And Tuesday newspapers arrived for the first time since the earthquake hit, informing the isolated city that hadn’t had access to the outside world since early Saturday morning.

“Have you heard what has happened to the town of Constitution? How is Santiago faring after the earthquake?” asks Alex Canete, a social worker, who said he was going to help the regional government deliver food staples such sugar, flour, rice, salt, milk and water to residents street by street.

In one stunning story, as soon as Cristina Perez, 57, opened the front door of her century-old home on 729 Colo Colo St. in the center of Concepcion immediately after the earthquake struck, the entire brick and mortar facade pancaked to the ground in front of her creating a mountain of rubble.

The entire contents of the home and the stores she rents out on her first floor are laid bare to everyone. An angry Perez yells at onlookers to ¨go away¨ as she seeks to recover her belongings. Perez was born there, and the home has been in their family for more than 100 years.

The Sanhuez family saw the spine of the four-story apartment building just one block from the Bio Bio River wilt under the power of the 8.8-magnitude quake. With continuing aftershocks rocking the city, threats of a tsunami, a crime wave and no lights or water, they have huddled their brothers, wives and children and relocated to a roadside lot about 15 minutes outside Concepcion.

In a few more days their food will run out, but what they fear even more than hunger is going back.

Originally appeared March 3, 2010 http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/100302/earthquake-concepcion-social-unrest

Facing Gun Issue, Starbucks Throws Up Its Hands

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO (March 3) — The Starbucks coffee chain announced today that it will continue letting customers openly wear unloaded handguns in its coffee shops.

At the same time, the company asked members of the “open carry” gun movement and their opponents to refrain from putting Starbucks in the firing line of the national debate over the right to bear arms.

“The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores,” the Seattle-based company said in a statement released to the media.

Forty-three states allow citizens to openly wear a handgun in public. State laws vary on whether the handgun must be unloaded.

Brady Campaign / CREDO
This logo is part of an effort by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to pressure Starbucks to ban guns in its stores.
The informal open-carry movement apparently originated in Virginia several years ago but has come to unlikely prominence in the San Francisco Bay Area.

In recent months, Bay Area gun advocates have staged frequent open-carry “meet-ups” at Starbucks coffee shops and other restaurants. Some of the events have attracted dozens of men and women wearing handguns.

Last weekend, about 20 members of the movement — 12 of them sporting guns — came to Presidio National Park in San Francisco to pick up trash at scenic Baker Beach.

“We decided to do a serious activity while educating the public about responsible firearm ownership,” said Jon Schwartz, a leader of the informal movement. He was wearing a Smith & Wesson .45-caliber automatic on his left hip.

“It’s not just law enforcement and criminals that have guns but law-abiding citizens as well,” he said.

Schwartz, like other participants in open-carry events, was carrying two magazines on his belt with the maximum 10 bullets each. It takes about two seconds for him to load his weapon.

In California, much of the open-carry movement is focused on protesting county rules that sharply restrict the number of concealed weapon permits that are issued.

Bill Shelbrick, who also took part in the beach cleanup, said many of the open-carry advocates are former police officers and members of the military who believe they can protect themselves and the people around them by carrying weapons.

For Shelbrick, an electrician who said he once worked as a police officer in a Pennsylvania township, wearing his Ruger 9 mm automatic is an attempt to show the public that law-abiding citizens can go around armed.

“It’s my right and I want to exercise my right,” he said. “I think everybody should. We are not the gun-toting crazies that anti-gun organizations make us out to be.”

The sight of armed men drinking a venti latte at a Starbucks or dining out at a restaurant can be unsettling for some customers.

Police are frequently called to the scene of open-carry events, where they typically check to make sure all weapons are unloaded and in plain sight.

For business owners, open-carry events can create a dilemma. Employees risk offending armed customers by asking them to leave. But other patrons might walk out because of the presence of weapons.

Peet’s Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have banned customers from wearing handguns on their premises. But Starbucks has allowed the practice to continue in the states where open carry is legal.

Richard C. Paddock for AOL
Jon Schwartz, a leader in the movement to allow people to carry guns in public, picks up trash in San Francisco during a recent open-carry event. He was wearing a handgun on his left hip. He said such events promote responsible firearms ownership.
As a result, Starbucks has come under fire from gun-control advocates, particularly the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which has urged the chain to ban guns on its premises.

“Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots,” the group says on its Web site. “The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities — and it must be stopped.”

Last month, the Brady campaign sent a letter to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz urging him to reverse the company’s policy. The campaign noted that three Starbucks employees were shot and killed at a Washington, D.C., outlet in 1997 during a robbery attempt.

“These gatherings of armed individuals have provoked a strong and adverse reaction from members of the public who are appalled that coffee shops and restaurants would allow guns on their premises,” the letter said.

Starbucks did not cite the Brady Campaign by name in its statement today, but appeared to be responding to the anti-gun group.

“We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open-carry weapons laws,” the company said. “Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.”

The company noted that if it prohibited weapons in its shop, its employees would have to ask law-abiding citizens to leave, placing them in “an unfair and potentially unsafe position.” The statement also said the company is “extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society” but believes “that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.”

Whether Starbucks’ attempt to disassociate itself from the issue will work remains to be seen.

“I can’t speak for everybody, but I might think twice about having a large-scale event at Starbucks,” said Schwartz, the Bay Area open-carry advocate. “But I wouldn’t think twice about taking myself and my family and meeting a couple of friends for a great cup of coffee while participating in unloaded open carry.”

Originally appeared http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/facing-gun-issue-starbucks-throws-up-its-hands/19381679?sms_ss=email

Live Aid Famine Cash Bought Guns, Not Grain

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

LONDON (March 3) — Amid an ongoing global effort to raise funds for earthquake-stricken Haiti, new allegations surfaced today that millions of dollars raised by the 1985 Live Aid concerts for the victims of the Ethiopian famine were actually spent on weapons. The charges offer a timely reminder that collecting money is the easy part of any relief effort; making sure it gets to the right people is often far more complex.

Former Ethiopian rebel leaders have told the BBC that they siphoned off hundreds of millions of aid dollars to buy guns. Some of the diverted funds allegedly came directly from Western governments, and some from money raised in ticket sales at the twin concerts in London and Philadelphia. A 1985 CIA assessment of the country uncovered by the broadcaster also acknowledges that money ending up in militants’ coffers. “Some funds that insurgent organizations are raising for relief operations, as a result of increased world publicity, are almost certainly being diverted for military purposes,” it said.

Joe Schaber, AP
Live Aid concert organizer Bob Geldof speaks at the start of the blockbuster hunger relief effort on July 13, 1985, in London. Former Ethiopian rebels told the BBC that they used hundreds of millions of donated dollars to buy guns.
At the time of the famine, the Ethiopian government was fighting rebellions in the northern provinces of Eritrea (now an independent country) and Tigray. As it had lost control of much of the countryside in the north, relief agencies brought in aid to those regions from neighboring Sudan. Some was carried across the border in the form of cash, which was used to buy grain from Ethiopian farmers with surplus crops.

Rebels got their hands on this currency by disguising themselves as traders — a trick they were using before Live Aid money flooded into the country. The BBC quoted Christian Aid worker Max Peberdy, who took $500,000 into Ethiopia in 1984 to buy food supplies. A photo from the time shows him counting out money for a grain merchant, who was in fact Gebremedhin Araya, a senior member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). A member of the Relief Society of Tigray (REST) — the TPLF’s humanitarian wing, which was supposed to distribute the aid — supervised the transaction.

“I was given clothes to make me look like a Muslim merchant. This was a trick for the NGOs,” said Araya, who added that most of his grain bags were filled with sand. He said the money was passed to TPLF leaders, including Meles Zenawi, who became Ethiopian prime minister in 1991 and still rules the country. (He has not commented on the allegations.)

“As far as we were concerned and as far as we were told by REST, the people we were dealing with were merchants,” Peberdy told the BBC. “It’s 25 years since this happened, and in the 25 years it’s the first time anybody has claimed such a thing.”

Aregawi Berhe, a former rebel commander now living in exile in the Netherlands, backed up Araya’s story. He said that in 1985 the TPLF and affiliated groups got ahold of $100 million, 95 percent of which was spent on arms. He told the broadcaster that his men would stage a “drama” to get the cash. “The aid workers were fooled,” he said.

How much of the $140 million-plus raised by Live Aid ended up buying guns instead of grain is not clear. According to the BBC, Band Aid’s accounts suggest that it gave almost $11 million to groups linked to the rebels. But one of the event’s organizers, Irish rock star Bob Geldof, told British radio that this figure was wrong, as only 0.45 percent of all Live Aid money spent in 1985 went to Tigray.

He also dismissed evidence given by ex-military chief Berhe. “You’re talking about a disgruntled, exiled army general, someone who was not in any way connected with the relief organization,” said Geldof. He added that while it was possible that some money was mislaid, the scale of the fraud alleged by the BBC would have meant that all of the aid groups operating in Tigray — including Oxfam, Save the Children, UNICEF and Christian Aid — “were somehow all duped. And that’s simply not the case.”

Ultimately, Geldof said, this controversy wouldn’t detract from Live Aid’s achievements. “What [the event] did was superb,” he said. “And there are millions of people alive today because of it.”

originally appeared 3/3/2010 http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/live-aid-famine-cash-bought-guns-not-grain/19381649?sms_ss=email

Guatemalan Women Arming Selves Because of Climate of Insecurity

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Guatemalan Women Arming Selves Because of Climate of Insecurity

GUATEMALA CITY – The climate of insecurity in Guatemala is forcing women to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families, the official Diario de Centroamerica newspaper said Monday.

A report by the daily says that, regardless of their profession, more and more women are acquiring weapons and are registering them with the Digecam regulatory agency.

Some 9,200 weapons have been registered at that agency in the name of women, a figure that represents 4 percent of the total weapons registered.

Digecam assistant director Guillermo Mejia said that while it is not very common for women to approach the institution, each day they are showing more interest in carrying a firearm for self-defense.

What is motivating women to arm themselves, the official told the daily, is the need to feel more secure and protected, because many of the women own businesses and have been the victims of crime.

Many of the women have received professional training on how to fire their weapons and others have been shown how to do so by their husbands or sons, Mejia said.

Activist Rosario Escobedo, of the Sector de Mujeres group, said she feels that violence will not be done away with by arming oneself and it is the duty of the authorities to provide security for the public.

But women have been strongly affected in recent years by the climate of insecurity.

Between 2003 and 2008, the murders of women increased in Guatemala by 179 percent, according to a report prepared by the national ombudsman’s office.

During 2009, 720 women were murdered in Guatemala and another 899 were injured in acts of violence, according to the same report.

Meanwhile, last month 40 women were killed in violent acts.

Guatemalan authorities blame gangs and other organized-crime elements for much of the violence in this Central American country of roughly 13 million people, which recorded 6,475 homicides last year, an average of 18 murders per day.

By comparison, 7,724 people were slain last year in neighboring Mexico, a nation of more than 100 million where rival drug cartels are waging war with each other and the security forces.

All but 4 percent of Guatemalan murders go unpunished, according to the U.N.-sponsored International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala.

Appeared in Latin American Herald Tribune 2/2/10

Virility lost, wait for gun

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Bhopal, Feb. 22: For two years they have been firing blanks in bed. But the promised gun licence hasn’t come yet.

Virility lost, the men have now decided to take up the pen in their quest for the “ultimate symbol of manliness”.

A group of 84 in the Gwalior-Chambal region, who got themselves sterilised in exchange for a gun licence, is writing to Union home minister P. Chidambaram, Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Chauhan and the newly formed “National Association for Gun Rights in India” to press their case.

Contractor Lalit Gupta, photographer Bhupender Namdev, agriculturalist Hamid Hussain and others had queued up for a vasectomy operation in February-March 2008 after Shivpuri district collector Manish Srivastva had come up with the gun licence offer.

Two years have passed but there is no sign of a licence.

Senior officials in the state health ministry blamed bureaucrats. “It may have happened that while the collector, Srivastva, was keen to increase the number of vasectomies, the police and other wings of the government were less enthusiastic. Once he was transferred, everything has been forgotten,” said a senior official.

Gupta said he regretted going for the offer. “I have two daughters and now my relatives often taunt me for not having a son. My profession is such that I need a gun while travelling to far-flung areas. I also thought a gun would enhance my social stature. Today I feel I was taken for a ride,” said the 35-year-old contractor.

Namdev, 38, said a gun in the dacoit-infested Gwalior-Chambal region was an ultimate symbol of manliness. “But now we are being laughed at.”

Collector Srivastva was transferred last year and the new collector feigns ignorance about the scheme. “I have no knowledge about it. The offer of such an incentive is not there in any file,” Raj Kumar Pathak said.

In February-March 2008, Srivastva had come up with the idea while trying to figure out why men were not coming forward for a simple non-scalpel procedure that would keep the population in check.

The previous year, 2007, had seen only eight persons coming forward to attend “nasbandi (vasectomy) camps” in exchange for a cash incentive of Rs 1,100.

“I gathered that it had to do with their perceived notion of manliness. I then decided to match it with a bigger symbol of manliness, a gun licence,” Srivastva had said.

District chief medical officer A.K. Dixit admitted that with the licences proving elusive, vasectomy queues had dried up, too. At a recent camp in Shivpuri, only two elderly men turned up. “Once incentives are off, people lose motivation,” Dixit said.

Both Namdev and Gupta said a letter had been prepared requesting the home minister’s intervention.

Abhijeet Singh, co-ordinator of the National Association for Gun Rights in India, said the 2008 scheme was a “gross violation” of human rights. “This is no way of promoting population stabilisation.”

Originally appeared in The Telegraph-Calcutta 2/22/10