Update From the UN in New York City: Iran and North Korea just blocked consensus adoption of the arms trade treaty. Syria also objected but did not raise its flag to formally block consensus. The meeting was suspended pending informal consultations
They are still conferring but the most likely outcome in the absence of full consensus today is referral to the General Assembly for a vote next week on the draft treaty which should require no more than a two thirds vote. I would predict that one way or the other this folly is going to be adopted within a week for signature and ratification by the member states.
The President of the United Nations' Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty plans this afternoon to proceed to take final action by consensus on the adoption of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. While a few issues remain to be sorted out, it is expected to pass with overwhelming support of the member states including most likely the United States.
The treaty regulates international trade in seven categories of conventional weapons listed in Article 2(1), which includes small arms and light weapons - for example, pistols and rifles. The international trade in these arms that is subject to global regulation involves all manner of "transfers," which are defined loosely as comprising "export, import, transit, trans-shipment and brokering."
The treaty has a specific article dealing with the regulation of "exports" of ammunition/munitions. Gun control non-governmental organizations and some member states pushed unsuccessfully for regulating all types of "transfers" of ammunition on the same scale as the conventional arms in which the ammunition would be used. But the inclusion of ammunition in the treaty at all provides a foot in the door for more expansive regulation to come.
Notably, armed drones are not specifically covered at all in the treaty.
In an attempt to answer those critics concerned about the potential overreach of the treaty into matters reserved for the internal decisions of each member state, the treaty reaffirms "the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system." (Emphasis added) However, the use of the word "exclusively" implies that the treaty would apply to the global regulation of the covered conventional arms that could possibly end up beyond a member state's borders at some point in the future. Moreover, the proponents of the treaty have not explained why another clause in the treaty limits the recognition of the individual right of ownership to "legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities," while excluding any recognition of other traditional individual uses such as self-defense. The only mention in the treaty text of an "inherent right" to self-defense applies to the member states themselves either in their separate state or collective capacities.
The treaty requires each treaty party state to establish "a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty" and to "provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties." Presumably, the national control list is aimed at reporting on "transfers" of covered arms in international trade. However, the problem is that "transfers" is defined very broadly in the treaty to include the "transit, trans-shipment and brokering" of arms within the territory of a member state, and applies to arms (including guns) that may be "diverted." As a consequence, the national control list provision can be interpreted and applied broadly as a pretext for national registration of all guns in private hands, since they may possibly be "diverted" into international trade at some point.
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment to the Senate’s budget bill to prevent the United States from entering into the deeply flawed UN Arms Trade Treaty. The amendment passed 53-46. Whether or not this amendment, or something like it in a separate bill, makes it through Congress, expect Obama to adopt the key provisions of the treaty in one of his Constitution-busting executive orders as part of his aggressive gun control agenda.
