The U.N. v. the Right to Bear Arms (Cont’d)

Volokh Conspiracy contributor David Kopel has a provocative op-ed in the WSJ($) today alleging that, despite their denials, the U.N.-sponsored Small Arms Conference really does want to ban all guns.

The U.N. has long urged that firearms must never be transferred to “non-state actors” — that is, entities which are neither governments nor government-approved. Only John Bolton’s intransigence prevented the “non-state actors” rule from being inserted into the Program of Action at the previous U.N. small arms conference in 2001. But the U.N. continues to insist on the “non-state actors” rule — which would, if adopted, make it a violation of international law to sell arms to Taiwan (according to the U.N., not a state). It would also make illegal arms sales to any and every current group resisting tyranny or genocide.

. . .Barbara Frey has been appointed by the U.N. as “Special Rapporteur on the Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons.” Ms. Frey, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, believes it is a human rights violation if a government does not require gun owners to have a restrictive license, under which “Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized.” Were this doctrine accepted, it would instantly turn the U.S. government and every American state into international law-breakers.

I still don’t quite see it for this reason- NGOs may want to ban small arms, but governments like the U.S. probably don’t. Still, Kopel has obviously been paying lots of attention to this. He’s a smart guy so his article is worth a read.