Like so many harmful initiatives in recent years, the proposed “Small Arms Treaty” (another label for the eventual product of the current discussions) is being promoted as a measure many Americans would support. Supposedly designed to fight terrorism, insurgency and international criminal syndicates, it will instead, according to NAGR, require licensing of gun owners, confiscation of firearms, a banning of arms sales, and the creation of an international gun registry. Writing for ESPNOutdoors, columnist Colin Moore notes: “As for the Arms Trade Treaty, Sanetti said he thinks it might pose the greatest danger if only because there are so many different permutations it could take, any of which could be disastrous to gun owners.”
The possible introduction to the Senate of a formal treaty to accomplish any of these goals brings to mind some previous measures and recommendations emanating from the highest levels of the U.S. government. In 1961, the U.S. State Department issued a document entitled “The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” Characterized as a measure to address the threat of nuclear weapons, State Department Document 7277 (its other name) called for the scrapping of all nuclear weaponry for all nations but not for the UN. But it also contained a complete UN-enforced ban on the private ownership and manufacture of weapons stating in part: “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”
Though official U.S. policy, State Department 7277 has never been enforced. But it certainly shows the eventual goal of the gun-banners.
In 1962, the U.S. State Department financed and issued Lincoln P. Bloomfield’s Study Memorandum No. 7 carrying the title “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.” Again, this document preyed on widespread fears about nuclear weapons being unleashed. But it called not only for nuclear disarmament under UN control, it sought to block any sort of citizen uprising from guerrilla war or something similar that might challenge total UN domination, even in a limited way. The document reads in part, “No international system except a total tyranny complete with the apparatus of a police state would be capable of dealing with certainty with this type of disorder.” It doesn’t require sophisticate legal expertise to understand that no private ownership of weapons would be tolerated in a “world effectively controlled by the United Nations.”
The State Department’s 7277 and the Bloomfield-authored document have not been enforced. But the fact that they both pointed to the United Nations as the source of all authority over a disarmed citizenry amply demonstrates the thinking of some in high government positions. Both are consistent with the threat pointed to by the National Association for Gun Rights.
That Hillary Clinton would be a backer of a UN treaty designed to disarm Americans (and others throughout the world) will surprise virtually no one. That the possession of firearms by Americans citizens seems again threatened will startle very few. But these potentialities are real and should not be discounted.
Blocking this threat can be accomplished first by electing leaders who will not put the likes of Hillary Clinton in high office, a point also noted by Sanneti. “Our salvation might be that 2012, which is when the UN will put the Arms Trade Treaty on the front burner, is an election year,” Sanetti told Moore.
Second, and just as important, the U.S. should withdraw completely from the United Nations. Sooner, not later.
John F. McManus is President of The John Birch Society.