I’m sitting in my hotel room in New York City, just blocks away from the United Nations Plaza, studying the draft UN “Small Arms Treaty.”
And it’s just as I expected.
After you strip away all of the flowery language of this treaty, it comes down to a completely open-ended attempt to put United Nations bureaucrats in charge of firearms policy worldwide, usurping the authority of countries to set their own policies.
If you want to slog through the draft language, you can see it by clicking here.
What you’ll notice is the entire scope of this treaty is covered in elegant dancing, attempting to say things without actually saying them.
But UN insiders — who’ve been involved in this process for years — say you can understand a lot more about the intentions of this treaty by reading between the lines, and by noticing the ambiguous mentioning of “control”.
Some of the apologists will point to a paragraph in the preamble, claiming that it covers the “lawful private ownership” of firearms for recreational and sporting activities.
First, the preamble isn’t binding. It’s where you put nice-sounding words that have literally ZERO legal force.
Second, the preamble language doesn’t even mention “lawful private ownership.” Only “recreational” or “sporting” use.
If you’ve been around the gun control debate for as long as I have — and I just started my 20th year as a professional “gun lobbyist” — you know what politicians mean when they talk about “recreational and sporting” firearms.
Hint: they’re aren’t talking about defensive handguns, semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, Mini-14, M1A, M1 Garand or anything like that.
Sporting firearms are shotguns and bolt action rifles. They don’t want to anger hunters, but instead have their eye set on what our founding fathers called “liberty’s teeth.”
If you doubt that, just look at the statue in the main plaza of the UN.
It’s not a tank’s main gun that’s tied in a knot.
It’s a uniquely American revolver — closely resembling a Smith & Wesson, if not an exact copy.
In other words, a defensive handgun. An icon of American independence.
But that’s the attitude down here: UN bureaucrats scoff at American freedoms, and the anti-gun organizations gleefully point to mass murders as their proof that America’s firearms freedoms are far too lax.
Of course, virtually all of these UN bureaucrats come from countries where only government agents have firearms — and where unarmed civilians are subjects.
The goal is simple: get the camel’s nose under the tent. Get international influence, control and authority into firearms policy…
…then ban firearms wholesale, for all but government agents.
The worst — and most surprising, last minute — provision of this treaty is the ability to change it, at any time in the future.
According to Article 20 of the draft, this treaty can be amended by a vote of the signers of the treaty… any time in the future, with amendments proposed by any country!
That means that if the U.S. Senate ratifies this current treaty but opposes future changes, it is still bound by the future changes.
This is the perfect end-run around the U.S. Senate ratification of unpalatable gun controls.
All they need to do is amend the Small Arms Treaty after a very generic version has been ratified, and there’s no need to ratify it again, according to the treaty’s language for amendments.
Just this morning I was interviewed by Fox News, and my message was clear: we will fight against this treaty in the U.S. Senate.
We will fight against ratification of this treaty with everything at our disposal.
After the camera’s lights turned off and we went off-air, the reporter leaned in close and said “but can you beat it?”
My response: “With enough activists, yes, we can.”
[the remainder of the post is a request for donations]