United Nations has filed its first firearms trace request.

[Hoopla Phil]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201004289795/editorial/warning-about-un-plans-for-gun-regulations.html

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) - the trade association for the firearms industry - has learned that the United Nations has filed its first firearms trace request. The move by the United Nations, which has long advocated for civilian disarmament, raised concerns from the NSSF.

n this particular case, the manufacturer declined to provide the information to the United Nations and instead advised UN officials to make its request through proper internationallaw enforcement channels.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyone one have any idea why the UN would request firearms trace data?

[joeybee12]

1. I don't know..maybe because guns are weapons and a particular weapon

was used on someone or used to commit a crime.

[dmallind]

2. I am unfamiliar with the UN's basic criminal code enforcement role. NT

[Euromutt]

46. That's because it doesn't have one

Because the United Nations is made up of member states, all of which are sovereign, there's not really much of what you'd call "international criminal law" except what's derived from international humanitarian law, which pretty much entirely relates to warfare and genocide.

[dmallind]

57. I thought that was it. So why was the UN tracing guns again? Can't be a crime as suggested....NT

[Euromutt]

60. The gun turned up in rebel hands in Côte d'Ivoire

FYI, there's been an on-again/off-again civil war going on there for the better part of ten years, and the UN Security Council has passed a number of Chapter VII ("threats to international peace and security") resolutions, which included setting up a Group of Experts to monitor the situation. It is this group of experts that sent the letter to HK-USA asking "who did you sell this gun to?"

[brendan120678]

4. But why the UN? Why not ATF, or FBI? (nt)

[shadowrider]

8. See post 6

They don't care about the ATF or FBI. THEY want the control.

[Euromutt]

54. Because the gun turned up in Côte d'Ivoire

Kind of outside the ATF and FBI's jurisdiction.

[HALO141]

59. More than a little outside their purvue. n/t

[shadowrider]

3. Their objective is a gun-free world

And this is their attempt to over-ride national sovereignty to do so.

I saw some info on this earlier and will try and find it.

Backers of this move will be arriving in 3, 2, 1...(you get the drift)

[sharesunited]

5. Not getting shot would seem to be a basic human right.

[shadowrider]

7. So is the ability to defend your life by any means necessary

[sharesunited]

9. By any means necessary is an entirely subjective standard. No can do.

[shadowrider]

10. Your opinion, mine differs

I'll greet the bad guy with 10+1, 165 grain, .40 caliber hollowpoint, one bullet at a time.

[sharesunited]

13. Or you slip a gear and go postal at a family reunion. Whichever.

[shadowrider]

15. Happens all the time, here, let me quote newspaper articles regarding LEGAL gun owners doing that

Except in rare, rare, rare instances

Checking the paper

I'm looking...

hang on..

still looking..

DARN IT, don't seem to be any.

[sharesunited]

23. Legal gun owners are legal right up to the moment they aren't. Kind of a roll of the dice.

A dice game everyone in society is forced to participate in whether they want to or not.

[Hoopla Phil]

27. Prior restrain is a dangerous game too. I wonder how your logic could be

applied to other crimes.

[sharesunited]

31. How does making an inherently dangerous product generally unavailable to society

constitute pre-crime intervention?

No one is targeted.

[Hoopla Phil]

35. Prior restraint on a civil right is a very dangerous thing and targets everyone. And please

see this thread for your your information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=313308&mesg_id=313308

[sharesunited]

37. Thanks for that link.

[Llewlladdwr]

58. You mean like an automobile?

People can get hurt bad if they aren't careful with one of those things.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Legal computer owners are legal right up to the moment they aren't. Kind of a roll of the dice.

They're all just exercising their rights, until they snap and start running a botnet or distributing child pornography,
or trading in other people's identities.

This is why open, unmonitored access to computers and the Internet must be eliminated.


(How'd I do?)

[shadowrider]

42. Not bad

but I'm afraid the analogy will be lost on some.

[Travis Coates]

45. Castrate all males? NNTO

[X_Digger]

28. See this thread..

Not like you haven't seen it before, I'm sure..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=313308&mesg_id=313308

[sharesunited]

34. Thanks for that link.

[jazzhound]

56. Even though I didn't provide it --- you are welcome.

We will thank you to stop lying on this issue.

[gorfle]

39. This is untrue.

Legal gun owners are legal right up to the moment they aren't. Kind of a roll of the dice.

The idea that legal gun owners are legal right up to the moment they aren't is false.

The vast majority of people who commit crimes with firearms - over 90% - have extensive prior criminal records.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

So the likelihood of a firearm owner committing a crime is not random chance like rolling dice at all. It's actually fairly easy to predict based on whether or not the firearm owner has a prior criminal record.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Very rarely happens like that.

Read The Gift of Fear. There are always indicators before someone commits murder. Usually they have a violent record.

[backwoodsbob]

44. legal speech is legal right up to the moment it's not

let's drop that pesky first amendment

[gorfle]

38. Hardly ever happens.

The idea that normally law-abiding firearm owners just suddenly snap and "go postal" is a myth.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

[Callisto32]

49. Law uses subjective standards all the time.

Besides, "guns are bad" is subjective. Doesn't stop you from saying it, or at least things that are functional equivalent thereof.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Self defense is a basic human right.

[shadowrider]

17. Self-defense is human nature. Survive at any cost.

You don't see a muskrat meekly giving up its life to a rattlesnake simply because fighting back isn't in its genes.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Self defense is a basic human right.

[shadowrider]

26. I'm not disagreeing with you.

Simply stating it's human nature to survive at all costs in addition to the right to do so.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. Pardon me. And thank you for the clarification.

[Riftaxe]

20. But getting bludgeoned or stabbed/hacked to death

is perfectly fine. As a matter of fact they will dispatch heavily armed forces to observe, if you can arrange these things en masse! Most likely Dutch troops, since they are masters of doing nothing in zones of genocide(Srebenica, Darfur, etc).

[Euromutt]

55. I was on the staff of DutchBat's parent brigade in 1994

And I also worked on the Krstic case while I was working for the prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia from 1997 to 2001. I'll be happy to fill you in on what really went wrong with the whole "Safe Area" scheme, and it wasn't just the Dutch.

[atreides1]

40. Where does it say that?

Just wondering?

[proteus_lives]

50. You know how you fulfill that right?

With the basic human right of self-defense.

[Euromutt]

52. Whose sovereignty? Côte d'Ivoire's?

This request pertains to a P7M13 that was originally sold by HK-USA and turned up in rebel hands in Côte d'Ivoire; the Group of Experts set up by the UN Security Council to monitor developments in that country wants to know how the gun got there.

This isn't necessarily intended to make the US or Heckler & Koch look bad, but it could reflect badly on whoever originally bought that pistol. Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) bought the P7M13, and given the chaos there, I'd guess that that's where the gun entered the black market.

[shadowrider]

6. Background info for you

http://battleflags.tripod.com/ungun1.html

http://www.iahf.com/world/un.html (Lots of links from the UN website included)

on edit: Nevermind with the U.N. links, they've been scrubbed

[Hoopla Phil]

11. Thanks for the info. Do you know of any sources for the scrubbed information?

The U.N. seems very intent to get guns out of the hands of the U.S. citizen for some reason. I wonder what the motivation is. . .

[shadowrider]

14. They were directly off the UN website. Here's more for you (UN related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6pLjDmgMwA

More at youtube. Just look for United Nations Gun Control.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Thanks again! I wonder if any "treaty on small arms" would actually

be ratified in the U.S. Fortunately there should be plenty of time for people in the U.S. to read the treaty and see what may be hidden in it before it comes up for a ratification vote.

[shadowrider]

18. PROVIDED the MSM (usually anti-gun) HONESTLY and RESPONSIBLY reports on it

I won't hold my breath.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. That's true. I'm hoping that organizations like GOA would be able to

look it over and get the word out.

[X_Digger]

21. Even then.. since congress has to ratify it..

.. and congress can't legally do something unconstitutional, this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.

SCOTUS would rule that congress' ratification of the treaty as being an unconstitutional infringement of the second amendment.

Game over.

[shadowrider]

24. Well

That may be true, but D.C. lost and they're STILL finding ways to deny people their defensive weapons. A politician is NEVER out of tricks.

[X_Digger]

30. Oh agreed, but still..

.. the hand wringing over the idea of the US giving up sovereign power to the UN based on treaty is overblown.

Doesn't stop pols from _trying_ but it'll never succeed.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Yeah I saw they linked directly to the U.S. But they have been removed and not just moved. I

was wondering if there was an online source that may have copied and archived them before the U.N. scrubbed them.

[shadowrider]

22. They've probably been cached somewhere, but honestly

I'm not computer savvy enough to find them. Maybe one of the more technically savvy people reading this can find them.

[Hoopla Phil]

33. Me either. I'd love to see a smoking gun (pun intended) document from

the U.N. that says what their real goal is in disarming the U.S. citizens.

[shadowrider]

36. I don't think that exists

because in and of itself it would cause an uproar. Rather, their attempted goal will be to "do good" on a "worldwide" scale, which, by deduction, would include the U.S. (without actually saying U.S.)

[Euromutt]

47. The linked .pdf says it pertains to Côte d'Ivoire

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/UN-030510.pdf

Specifically, a H&K P7M13 turned up in the hands of rebel forces in Côte d'Ivoire, and the Group of Experts tasked with carrying out UNSC resolution 1893 (2009) are interested in finding out who was responsible for supplying it to them.

[X_Digger]

48. I read that earlier, and is it just me..

.. or did the opening statement sound like the start of one of those nigerian scam emails?

[Euromutt]

51. It's not just you (n/t)

[Tejas]

53. This just in.....

The bottom feeders at the UN still don't (and never will) have the cajones to stand toe to toe with Norinco. The UN might push South Africa and others around, but no way will they ever step into the minefield of stopping the flow of Chinese arms to Africa.