Mexico wants the UN to ban civilian possession of guns...
... and moreover, they are blaming legal gun owners for the problems:
Illegal civilian possession of small arms usually starts with weapons that were brought and produced in a legal way, until they become part of the illicit market after being lost, robed or transferred in any way from the legal owner to another person that couldn?t get them through the legal way. One of the sources of the illegal market are the legal owners, there is an evident need for the enactment and enforcement of civilian possession regulations, with a view to preventing such flows from taking place.
Yeah, I know, no surprise. What is surprising is what they said next:
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.
Interesting. Admittedly, as the government of a sovereign state, Mexico is not likely to favor reducing its own authority in favor of UN regulation. But it's still interesting that they went from blaming legal gun owners for the problem of gun crime to a paragraph suggesting that the UN not regulate the issue closely. The next paragraph can be effectively paraphrased as "Let's outlaw theft and smuggling again, since it didn't work the first time."
Anyways, whatever credit they get for that paragraph is quickly tossed as they move on to talking about the "Program of Action", which apparantly used to have a lot of gun control in it, most of which was dropped before the final document, but which left a few interesting references that call for, among other things, restrictions on "unmarked" small arms, and to ensure that "comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding, and transfer of small arms".
Registration is the first step to confiscation. Governments want to know who has guns, because people who have guns are a threat to the government monopoly on force. Or, in other words, people with firearms are difficult to intimidate and need not beg for protection from a government unable, or unwilling, to provide it.
Here are the regulations Mexico is proposing:
1. The property, possession and carrying of weapons should be authorized through the expedition of licenses that should consider the following criteria: a) Minimal age b) Criminal record or any history of interfamilial violence c) Prove of a legitimate reason to acquire a weapon. d) Knowledge of laws related to arms. e) Prove the training in the use of the weapon in a safe way. f) Prove that the weapon can be stored in a safe place.
This is exactly what gun banners want: legislation that transfer the right of self-defense into a limited, licensed privilege requiring substantial effort to comply with, and which can be narrowed further and further by beaurocratic fiat and finally eliminated completely. To allow this to be implemented is to surrender control of force to the government.
Some people believe that is a good thing.
I do not.
Any entity which obtains a monopoly on force becomes, inevitably, oppressive; it cannot be effectively resisted, and therefore there can be no check on the wishes of that entity. It is only a matter of time, and in the United States, it has already begun.
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.
Yet more government control, seeking to ensure that everyone in possession of a firearm must come begging back to the govermment every time they want to shoot it. From a practical perspective, as well, many people do not understand how much ammunition an active shooter can go through; a thousand rounds in each caliber is not unusual. It's just another way to make it inconvenient and expensive for individuals to possess firearms and practice shooting them.
3. Licenses should have an expiration date and be subject to a periodical re-expedition after being proved that the person has no criminal records, besides any other requirement.
... and, of course, providing further inconvenience and annoyance to gun owners, requiring them to re-establish their "fitness" on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be simpler to lock up people who can't be trusted with firearms when they demonstrate that they can't be trusted?
4. It should be forbidden for civilians to posses weapons designed for military use, not suitable for legitimate self-defense purposes (i.e. automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, machine guns and light weapons in general)?
Because, god forbid, a government of governments would never want to risk one of its members being overthrown and replaced with a democracy.
5. All weapons possessors should ensure a safe storage and keep separate storages for the weapon and the ammunitions.
... and there goes the 4th Amendment. Governments really have no respect for basic rights, and the UN insists on repeatedly demonstrating this.
6. establish measures that allow authorities to seize the weapon when the licenses are revoked or when it can be proved that the owners, in events that take place after the license issuance, do not have the capacity of using them in a safe way.
So, if you manage to get a license in the first place, the government is permitted to take your firearms away from you if you "do not have the capacity of using them safely", in addition to periodic license renewals and criminal background checks. Those words are a goldmine for beaurocrats. They'll be able to justify almost any seizure under that clause, because apparantly self-defense is not a legitimate use. It's not "safe". Someone -- the criminal -- might get hurt.
7. Have trustworthy records that contain information about the license of the salesman, the buyer, the type of weapon and the type of ammunition (brand, caliber and serial number), besides from having certificates for the final user.
So how will these
records be used? I can see no legitimate purpose.
8. Establish criminal or administrative sanctions when the dispositions on possession are violated.
heh. Yes, breaking the law should have punishment attached.
9. Have amnesties to promote the hand out of legal weapons and the ones that are not being used in exchange of money or food. These programs should have gender perspective. In order to prevent their resale or diversion to the illicit market, weapons collected through these initiatives should be destroyed as soon as possible, where appropriate and in accordance with national legislation.
What the hell does "gender perspective" have to do with anything? For that matter, once the weapons are in the hands of government, what exactly is the reason we should be trying to prevent their legal resale? But I must admit, I have no objection to the hand out of legal weapons... though I somehow doubt that the true intent of that provision survived translation.
10. States should cooperate in the exchange of information, mobilization of resources for training and exploration of alternatives for national legislation harmonization.
... and we can all sing Kumbaya together, while applying as much international pressure on the US to ban those nasty guns, because the people of the United States should be "harmonized" with international gun laws whether they like it or not.
11. Involve international organizations and civil society in assisting States for the effective implementation of these principles.
I think this means that the UN should support non-governmental organizations in the United States lobbying our government to regulate firearms in express violation of our Constitution. I find that offensive, particularly in light of the paragraph at the beginning explicitly saying that the regulation of firearms is a matter for an individual state.