reducing the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms.The supporting arguments made by the UNODC sound okay on their face but represent a risk to our rights under the Second Amendment. To see why, here is an excerpt from a recent UNODC document outlining the goals of the Protocol with the phrases highlighted that provide an opening for abuse by the Executive branch:
6. As the only global legally binding instrument on firearms, the Firearms Protocol establishes a global framework for States to control and regulate licit arms and arms flows, prevent their diversion into the illegal circuit and facilitate the investigation and prosecution of related offences by means of the following: (a) preventive and security measures establishing proper marking and record-keeping systems and a strict transfer control regime based on government authorizations/licensing for import, export and transit, in order to facilitate traceability throughout the lifetime of a firearm; (b) criminal provisions establishing specific offences and measures to prevent the diversion of arms into the illegal circuit, providing for the seizure and confiscation, deactivation and destruction of firearms, and provisions aimed at facilitating criminal investigations and prosecutions; …The risk is ratification of the Protocol will be used to make gun ownership much more difficult and that 'unauthorized' guns will be seized and destroyed, in effect accomplishing an object that the Supreme Court has so far prohibited.
Needless to say, treaties such as this, imposed from the outside, are not in the best interest of US citizens. Our rights as citizens are protected by our Constitution and nothing coming from the UN should be allowed override those protections.
Now, since this is a treaty, the Senate plays a pivotal role in deciding whether it is or is not ratified. I have written to my Senators recommending a NO vote if and when the treaty is presented to the Senate.