Gun Makers Up in Arms Over Proposed U.N. Treaty (UN gun grab ALERT!)

Fox News ^ | August 5, 2011 | Maxim Lott

[yoe]

A controversial U.N. proposed treaty aimed at regulating guns worldwide has been shrouded by confusion and misinformation.

Known informally as the 'Small Arms Treaty,' its detractors have charged the proposed agreement with secretly trying to take guns out of the hands of Americans and circumventing the 2nd Amendment.

While that is unlikely, a working draft proposal obtained by FoxNews.com contains language that some gun advocates say could have a real impact on American gun makers.

Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.

Tom Mason, who represented the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting at the U.N. conference, told FoxNews.com the provisions are worrying.

“No, there are no black helicopters. There is no secret treaty that Hillary Clinton has signed,” Mason said. “But on the other hand, the treaty is a significant threat to gun owners. I think the biggest threat may be the body that would administer the treaty,” he added, referring to a new U.N agency the treaty would create, to be called the “Implementation Support Unit.”

Under the latest draft of the treaty, every country would be required to submit a report to the ISU outlining “all activities undertaken in order to accomplish the implementation of this Treaty, including… domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures.”

It also requires countries to set up their own government agencies to track any guns that could be exported. “Parties shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market……….

[EdReform]

Bookmark for later. Thanks for posting!

[OneWingedShark]

...well, the Declaration of Independence says a bit differently, especially about the part about *any* government being detrimental to the inherent rights asserted therein.