rufx2 writes: >Mexico's submission to the UN Small Arms Cnference Preparatory Committee >regarding civilian firearm possession: > >http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/off-docs-prep.html
Mexico's document is at http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/CRP.7.pdf on that page, and is an interesting example of confusing language in terms of what is said, how it is interpreted and how it is to be implemented. Note: SALW = Small Arms and Light Weapons Some items are intriguing - e.g. what does "The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute has established a close relation between the perpetration of violent crimes, such as robbery, assault and sexual crimes, and the use of firearms." mean? The document says, "It is important to underscore that the discussions on regulation and control of civilian possession of SALW do not necessarily presuppose support for outright prohibitions, bans or comprehensive restrictions. While in some societies such measures may have yielded positive results, in others the possession of firearms as means of self-defence is regarded as a legitimate individual right. The lack of unequivocal empirical evidence in support of either approach suggests that the decision to impose bans or comprehensive restrictions on the possession of SALW by civilians is a matter best left for each State to decide, in light of its domestic circumstances and in accordance with its constitutional principles." Which doesn't sound too bad if, e.g., the USA is left to decide what is best for the USA. But then there are a set of quite strict measure that States are expected or urged to adopt. A 1997 report is mentioned which "calls all States to gather and destroy, as soon as possible, all the arms that are illegally in hands of civilians and that are not needed for the security of the country." (In that context I think that the "and" will be interpreted as an inclusive or - what do you think?) The real mischief comes in the Proposal (to the Review Committee which will be meeting in 2006, with the Preparatory Committee meeting 9-20 Jan 2006 - i.e., it's started already) which has a set of very restrictive principles including: "c) Prove of a legitimate reason to acquire a weapon." "2. Limit the sale of ammunitions to those who posses a valid license of property, possession and/or carrying of weapons, and will only be sell ammunitions to the type of weapon mentioned in the license and in a reasonable number of them." "It should be forbidden for civilians to posses weapons designed for military use, <font color=red>not suitable for legitimate self-defense purposes (i.e. automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, machine guns and light weapons in general)</font>" [red font in original] Right there, perhaps the majority of rifles in the US would be forbidden. (If the oxymoronic "semiautomatic assault rifles" includes all semi-auto rifles above 22LR caliber, I think it would be more than half of all non-22LR rifles.) I hope that rufx2 or others will continue to pay attention to this, and particularly let us know about "the report of the Preparatory Committee." --henry schaffer _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
