The United Nations’ Ninth Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA), held June 1-5 at UN Headquarters in New York, concluded with a troubling display of procedural gamesmanship and a clear signal that international gun-control advocates intend to dramatically expand their campaign against the firearms community.
Before the meeting even opened, delegates were presented with a draft outcome document containing language that openly targeted the firearms industry. Most concerning was a provision calling for the establishment of an industry code of conduct – coded language that the UN could use to hold not only the firearms industry, but the entire commercial supply chain, responsible for the criminal diversion of their products.
NRA members should recognize this tactic. It mirrors developments NRA-ILA has repeatedly reported on during discussions surrounding the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), where anti-firearms advocates have sought to establish a standard of liability based on the claim that any violations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, or acts of so-called gender-based violence committed with a firearm are so foreseeable that everyone involved in the lawful transfer of that firearm should bear responsibility.
Under this theory, liability would not stop with manufacturers. It could extend to exporters, importers, brokers, commercial shipping companies, insurers, financial institutions, and payment processors. The reach is virtually limitless, but the objective is obvious: if anti-firearms activists cannot eliminate the lawful firearms trade directly, they can attempt to make participation in it so legally risky that businesses choose to withdraw voluntarily.
This represents the next evolution of the international gun-control movement’s attack on the firearms community. By expanding theories of liability across the entire supply chain, advocates seek to pressure lawsuit-weary shipping companies, freight carriers, banks, insurers, and payment processors to distance themselves from lawful firearms commerce. The ultimate goal is to isolate the firearms industry economically and logistically without having to secure formal prohibitions.
But that wasn’t the only maneuver on display at the UN last week.
The meeting also featured efforts to advance a UN-backed study on firearms marking and tracing. In a seemingly innocuous paragraph of the outcome document, delegates were asked to welcome the study and the dubious conclusions it drew into the folds of the PoA, forever providing the UN with the “scientific evidence” it needs to expand firearm marking standards.
Even more significant was the launch of yet another new anti-firearms initiative within the UN system. The first meeting of the Open-Ended Technical Experts Group (OETEG) was held during the week, a group tasked with developing recommendations to ensure the full and effective implementation of the PoA and International Tracing instrument, or in plain English, to develop new international standards impacting the firearms community.
The group was chaired by Michael Imran Kanu, Sierra Leone’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations. While Ambassador Kanu set a positive precedent by meeting with the NRA outside of formal proceedings, we – as representatives of “industry” -were excluded from participating in the process itself. Once again, one of the few individuals in the room with practical expertise in firearms design and manufacturing was sidelined while government, academics, and advocacy organizations positioned themselves to shape the group’s future recommendations.
Forced to sit in silence, we witnessed presentation after presentation from academics granted “expert” status by the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) discussing the alleged dangers posed by what they call “new” technologies - modular weapons, polymer frames, and 3D printing.
Unfortunately, many of these presentations appeared to resonate within an echo chamber of largely non-technical delegates, with one even taking the floor to express their grave concern with the scourge of all plastic firearms flooding their streets.
The most troubling development of the week, however, came during the final negotiations over the meeting’s outcome document.
The United States delegation raised objections to multiple provisions and called for a vote on several of them. Under normal circumstance, this would have required member states to formally record their support or opposition to the disputed language – a standard practice when issues are sufficiently controversial. But instead, rather than permitting voting, the Chair employed UN attorneys to provide a legal interpretation that prevented voting.
For a consensus-based initiative, this was extraordinary. While significant issues were at stake, the determination to preserve these provisions appeared to outweigh any commitment to the PoA’s consensus-based mandate. To the United States’ credit, it declined to participate in the procedural maneuvering and broke with the rest of the room by formally objecting to adoption of the document as a whole.
Over the United States objection, the meeting moved forward. The outcome document was adopted and gaveled through to applause. The Chair then noted that the allotted time in the room had expired and it needed to be cleared.
But the celebration did not end there.
As delegates were departing, Ivor Fung, Chief of the Conventional Arms Branch of UNODA, made a point of walking past the United States delegation and remarking, “We have lawyers.”
That comment spoke volumes.
Whether intended as a boast or a celebration, the message was unmistakable: when objections threaten a desired outcome, legal and procedural interpretations will be employed to ensure that the process reaches the preferred destination.
Gun owners should pay close attention to what happened in New York last week. The controversy was not merely about a single document or a single meeting. It revealed a broader strategy that continues to unfold across multiple UN forums: expanding liability theories against the firearms industry, developing new international standards affecting firearm design and manufacture, excluding industry expertise from technical discussions, and using procedural tactics to advance political objectives.
As the Chair of the OETEG observed in his report, “This meeting marks the beginning of a much larger process.”
Although we - and the United States - may disagree with much of what was concluded this week, we can at least agree on that point.
More Like This From Around The NRA
