Anti-gun Efforts to Expand U.N. Regulations to Ammunition Continue

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Fairfax, VA – -( Shortly before 4:00 am last Saturday morning, the two weeks long Third Review Conference (RevCon3) on the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA) finally came to end.

Entering into the meeting several critical issues were on the agenda, none of which was more significant than attempts to include ammunition into the fold of the PoA.  Getting ammunition into the PoA has been at the top of the anti-firearms agenda since the PoA’s inception in 2001, as it opens the door for calls to mark, trace, limit and require a global register of its users.  To understand this, you must recognize that everything at the U.N. must be viewed not in the present, but in the future, and just like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) it is never about what is in the document when it is initially adopted, but what that language will allow it to become.  Ammunition was the real issue at RevCon3, as including it in the PoA would mark an even more significant step forward in the anti-firearm agenda of the U.N. than the adoption of the ATT.

It is for this reason that the United States’ policy has always been to object to attempts to include ammunition, and why this meeting, more so than any other on the PoA in the past, was so critical.  Review conferences provide a forum for enacting change, and while RevCon3 was the third time such a review had taken place, it was the first time a united front had been assembled to push for ammunition’s inclusion. Regrettably, even with a strong U.S. delegation staying true to the original red lines established by former U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, nothing could have been done to stop the final outcome.

For the United States, trouble began during the first week of the conference.  While the meeting started with the U.S. position receiving support from roughly half a dozen nations, the tide began to shift as the President of the Conference, French Ambassador Jean-Claude Brunet, emerged from the shadows of supposed impartiality to openly encourage the anti-firearms agenda represented by the majority in the room.

The critical turning point occurred mid-week, following statements from anti-gun group Civil Society, when the supposedly neutral President stopped the meeting and left his podium under the purported purpose of thanking those from Civil Society for their attendance.  But instead of thanking everyone he pushed past the pro-firearm groups to have his picture taken with only those representatives supporting his shared anti-firearm agenda, a picture he proudly posted to his official Twitter account.

Brunet was sending a message, I am on your side and will do what I can to help.  This message was clear and repeated throughout the remainder of the meeting, with his official Twitter account retweeting the messages of the anti-firearm groups in attendance and even carrying his own messages of support, including a picture celebrating wearing orange against “gun violence” and publicizing his closed meeting with the groups.  Had his actions been limited to Twitter they might have been easier to swallow, but instead, they carried onto the floor and began to impact and influence the course of the meeting.  Brunet was supporting their calls to include ammunition in the PoA, and he was going to do whatever he could to help them achieve that goal.

As the body worked through five draft outcome documents, it was clear that the objections being noted on the floor were not being reflected in the progressive drafts.  By the time the meeting had advanced to draft three, explicit calls to exclude ammunition from half a dozen countries, including the United States, had failed to be reflected.

Picking up on the President’s unwillingness to adhere to the objections from the floor, a coordinated effort focused on the most outspoken of the ammunition opponents, the United States, began to take hold.  Challenges that should have been directed at all those who opposed the inclusion of ammunition instead became directed attacks, and while others remained in opposition it became far too easy for them to go silent and allow the United States to become the punching bag.

Round after round the onslaught continued, with the United States defending its position countless times.  But the United States would not bend.  At no point was this more clear then when the delegation took the floor to make three short, succinct points; ammunition was specifically not a part of the PoA when it was adopted in 2001, there has never been consensus on ammunition in any subsequent meeting of the PoA, and, as far as the United States was concerned, there never will be.  As bold and direct as this was, the two paragraphs in every draft outcome document pushing for its inclusion remained, and it was clear the fight was going to go the distance.

By the second to last day, Brunet and his cohorts were beginning to panic.  The United States had not budged on the issue and was showing no signs that it would.  This was not a delegation operating under the marching orders of our past administration, but instead, a firm and solid team holding the line.

Attempting to use the clock to his advantage, Brunet took the meeting late into the night on Thursday, hoping exhaustion might encourage compromise.  But by 11:00 pm he finally called the meeting, providing him with just enough time to strategize with his minions, and by Friday, the last day of the meeting, a plan was in place.

Working alongside Ghana and over 60 other countries pushing for the inclusion of ammunition, and utilizing the German delegation to work the floor to garner support, a coordinated attack was launched.  Ammunition would be mentioned, requiring the United States to object, at which time the President would call for a break.  During the break, proposals for alternate language would be quietly negotiated throughout the room, and then the meeting would reconvene for open discussions on the new language.  Every time the result would be the same; no compromise.  But this was expected.  Brunet was trying to wear out the United States.

As the circus continued, by around 2:00 am frustration started to set in with the President.  Brunet had made the United States out to be a villain, the only country holding up a consensus on the document and preventing everyone from going home, but the only way to end it was for the U.S. to call for a vote, which the United States was holding out on.  In an effort to expedite the process he attempted to pass a motion by bringing the gavel down at almost the exact moment he finished speaking.  The meeting had now gone from bad to ugly, and the United States was not having any of it.

In the U.N., it is never looked upon fondly to be the one to break consensus, after all, delegates are trained to compromise, but knowing the United States would not back down from this issue allowed Brunet to use it to his advantage.  Finally, the United States made the call for the vote, and Brunet and his staff could implement their plan.

Up for vote were two paragraphs.  The first, and less controversial of the two, called from the regulation of surplus ammunition stockpiles.  The second, and far more significant acknowledged States apply the PoA and other, undefined “relevant international standards” to ammunition.  Again, a seemingly innocuous statement, but one that opens the door to full incorporation of ammunition into the PoA and its associated International Tracing Instrument, providing justification for later calls to globally regulate ammunition through such requirements as marking, tracing, stockpile limitations and registration.

Even before the votes were cast, it was clear the United States would not win, but it was a matter of principle.  Majority rule does not apply to a consensus document, and the United States had to break consensus to keep ammunition out.

The results of the vote read like something out of the Human Rights Council (before our withdrawal); the United States and Israel on one side, 63 third world, and Latin-American countries on the other, and 28 who supported our position but abstained nonetheless.

On to the second paragraph, or what would better between described as the second act of Brunet’s circus, but not before a two-hour strategy session.  When the meeting resumed, and before the vote could be cast, a motion was made and Brunet’s gavel was struck.  No time for discussion, no opportunity to object.   In what was clearly a coordinated effort, the original language on ammunition was reinserted into the document and passed at almost the exact moment the reading of it finished, forcing the vote to now be on language even more pervasive on the issue than that with which the U.S. had called to a vote.  In other words, Brunet had got the ammunition language he wanted in, knowing full well that the voting results would be the same.

As the clock inched towards 3:00 am the votes were cast and the results were are almost identical to the first.  The United States and Israel on one side, 62 on the other, and 29 abstentions.  Ammunition was in the final draft.  All that was left now was for the remainder of the document to be adopted and the meeting to adjourn, but the show was not over.  The circus had an encore.

In the push to get ammunition in the outcome document, a lingering issue with Syria remained.  Syria had objected to the inclusion of references to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, and specifically any in excess of target 16.4 since day one.  The SDG’s are a collection of 17 global goals encompassing 169 targets the U.N. established in 2015 in order to promote their agenda of sustainable development, ranging from gender equality to significantly reducing illicit arms flows.  They are used to push agendas far outside the scope of specific meetings.

Regrettably, the hour was late and the room was exhausted, so when voting was finally opened most were half asleep or too busy celebrating their “win” on ammunition to take note.  Even Syria itself failed to object, but that was not the end of it for them.

Syria continued to express their issues with the document, noting that it could not be adopted because there was no consensus.  But in a bizarre twist, they failed to express their own objection to it or call for a final vote.  When all was said and done, Madagascar took the floor, called for a vote, and the final draft outcome document was adopted, albeit with the U.S. reinforcing its objection to the two paragraphs including ammunition.

What we were left with as the hour approached 4:00 am and the meeting came to a close was a very dangerous document and even worse precedent having been set.  The requirement for consensus had been set aside, and a document containing references to ammunition was adopted; a document that will form the backbone of future calls by anti-gun proponents to regulate and restrict ammunition globally.

While there are others out there reporting on this meeting, a lot of what they take issue within the outcome document is simply the reassertion of language contained in the PoA.  Furthermore, they have selectively excluded any limiting language included, such as that contained in the introductory language to each section.  Make no mistake, ammunition was the real issue at RevCon3.  They would have also recognized that the United States’ objection to ammunition resulted in a document that does not conform to the PoA’s consensus requirement, and for this, we sincerely applaud their efforts.  The attacks they faced were ugly and while they held firm and kept true to their red lines, nothing more could have been done to stop the U.N.’s anti-gun agenda from moving forward short of withdrawing from another U.N. farce incapable of adhering its own requirements.

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Were any of the provisions, restrictions or US surrender of personal firearms signed by former Secretary of State John Kerry, ever rescinded?
This attack at rev on sounds like a stepping stone to US Civilian disarmament..


@David – sense they never went through congress it doesn’t matter, they were and are not law.

David Keith

The United Nations can suck the big one. They are, and should remain, our sworn enemy for all time. They need to stay in the monkey jungles where they came from….not dictating anything to us.


Let the UN dictate to The Third World. As to their antics in this country, they long since should have been shown the door. With suitable admonitions, one of which would have been as follows. The door is self closing, so don’t let the door knob hit you in the asson your way out.


I have a operators 338 Lapua with a 8-25 power glass in ffp, in millradian I can routinely hit 10 inches at 500 meters. Bring on the blue helmets. Working up to 1000 meters.


like n. pee-losi & a dog squatting over gravel, they can “pass” anything they like. the un & anything from the un is worth less than dog waste.


modification?…are worth less than dogwaste….

gary dolt

tell the u.n. to come and take are guns and ammo. i need new targets.


i don’t report to un or us gun control d-suckers


I have repeated this for years, the UN is no friend of the U.S.A. They think it is real convenient to have a building in N.Y. they can occupy full time when they do become the one world order. Kick them the hell off our soil and quit the donation of big bucks to them. We quit one arm of the third world tribe and it is time to finish the job.


Blue Helmets make wonderful targets


GET OUT OF THE UN! It was a good idea at the time, But as it is now it seams that the United States is picking up the tab for most. And now these idiots want to take out guns! Nope no way!


The left seems to think we are a servant of the UN! We are a member and can walk out anytime!

Missouri Born

The next Supreme Court Judge will have a very lasting effect on our constitution and our second amendment rights which is important to all believers of the right to own and use firearms like the originators of the document decreed.
I will not follow any directive from the U.N. as I don’t believe they have the authority to dictate to America.

Tonight’s announcement by President Trump of his pick for the court needs backing by us all, I am hoping that it is the guy from Michigan that hunts and owns firearms plus has a conceal and carry license.

Wild Bill

@MB, a UN program of action, dictate, or treaty is nothing in American law, until approved by the US Senate. Even then a Senate approved treaty is only the equivalent of a federal statute, and never rises to equal the US Constitution.
The S.Ct could review the provisions of a Senate approved treaty and decide that part or all of it are unConstitutional.
You are quite correct about the UN and the S. CT.


Ignorant really!!!! The 3 percent took care of it once and we will do it again!!!!!! And if you are calling gun owners ignorant you need to look in the mirror. I’m a NRA instructor and I am training hundreds of people a year and trust me I ain’t the only one!!!!! You can count on the American people to rally together if the UN tried to tell us what to do!!!
“MERICA” love it or leave it!!!!!!!!!

James Higginbotham

and i am a NRA LIFE MEMBER.

Dave B Peterson

The United Nations relies predominantly on the United States to fund its efforts. This is an undeniable fact. Since the United Nations would like to disarm everyone in the world excluding thier own security forces of course, then they should be encouraged to do so. However this encouragement should also come with one tiny caveat; the United States will never assist with any armed conflict issue in any country that pushes for universal disarmament. Outlaw all firearms and ammunition in your countries but never, ever come crying to me for help afterwards because I wont even pick up the phone.

James Andrews

We should have pulled out years ago!

Larry Griffith

I say we should pull out of the UN and kick them out of the USA. They can build their new building in another country, like Europe.

Wild Bill

@Dave B, The entire world depends upon the United States to fund themselves. Absent the US’s really poor trade deals not many countries could make a profit on their own. Poor trade deals are the covert foreign aid that the State Department (of previous libtard administrations) have put in place without the American taxpayer’s knowledge or consent.

America first

So fed up with these antigun pencil pushing libtard pansies.. fuck the french and the UN and rest of the other antigun pussys. ITS NOT THE FUCKING GUN OR AMMO! its the person pulling the trigger and most gun crimes are by people who stole the firearm or obtained it illegally in the first place. we dont need your libtard views we protect ourselves, Get us and keep us out of the UN bullshit. When your overrun with murderers and terrorists dont call us. So take your leftist libtard lies and bullshit and shove it up your ass.


So fed up with these antigun pencil pushing libtard pansies.. fuck the french and the UN and rest of the other antigun pussys. ITS NOT THE FUCKING GUN OR AMMO! its the person pulling the trigger and most gun crimes are by people who stole the firearm or obtained it illegally in the first place. we dont need your libtard views we protect ourselves, Get us and keep us out of the UN bullshit. When your overrun with murderers and terrorists dont call us. So take your leftist libtard lies and bullshit and shove it up your ass.!

Chad Brattain

The UN is nothing without the USA. We have saved every countries ass that is representing the UN at some point in time. The main reason we had to is because the didn’t have the firepower to protect themselves. So now they want to limit everyone’s abilities to protect themselves. Can you say DUMBASS!!! Guns have have been used to save 100 times more lives than they have been used to take lives. But let’s let the French pussies deside even though Germany destroyed them in 2 weeks because the had no armed population to fight back. Same things will… Read more »

Wild Bill

@Nubus B, All Trump would have to do is order the State Dept to refuse each of the UN Diplomats a US visa. The building would sit empty until gang members discovered it. Thus ends the UN.

Larry Griffith

I agree with Wild Bill. Excellent plan.


Great idea. The problem is just that politicians make a really bad audience.

Sadly, Bill, your solution is too simple… too sane… too logical… too practical… too intelligent… too “real world” for any politician (including our vaunted current POTUS) to even recognize, much less act upon.

As always, it will be up to true patriots to solve.

Wild Bill

@JoeUSooner, Yes, and does not cost the taxpayers anything, either! Ooooh, I see your point.

Walter Abernathy

When guns are outlawed a friendly pusher will start selling guns. Think about a nation where the drug users, cops, and a few body guards have guns. The rest are just pray. Mark a good movie, don’t want to live.

Michael D Hallas

While I understand your objections to the UN’s plan, some of you guys are forgetting that the UN isn’t controlled by the US Constitution and member countries are sovereign states that can largely ignore any UN mandates if they choose. The UN isn’t our government.


Sounds like the UN no longer needs our armed troops, weapons or ammunition to protect them all across the globe. That way we can keep our evil ammo away from them.

Herbert H Friar III

I agree. The UN is corrupted by the likes of Russia and China anyway. So let them do their thing and pay for it too!


Every law, regulation or judgement that affects guns and ammunition is in direct conflict with the Constitution and is there by illegal. Enforcement of those laws are acts of sedition.

Henry Gibbs

Our right to own fire arms.Is why we are a great country. People here and else where. That want our fire arms and ammo now. Our right to own is why we are still a free nation. The UN wants a few to rule over all countries. Our President knows what is what. People that do not have the USA and it’s citizens in their best intreast. Here and else where. You are.making a big mistake. Most Americans realize. Take our guns. Then take our country and our freedom. We as a nation need to do a lot of praying.

Gary Lord

For one thousand dollars you can buy enough reload equipment and powder,bullets.brass.primers for several calibers to last for a good amount of time and to pass down to your kids!

chris hale

You have obviously not priced decent reloading equipment. OR Maybe you don’t have a good understanding of ” a decent amount” of ammunition…It would take ten thousand at least.

John Dunlap

I submit that the price and quantity are irrelevant. Buying arms and ammo or reloading supplies just so you’ll have them after a ban is pointless. Once arms become contraband, you won’t be able to engage in the activities you once enjoyed without great personal risk to both self and loved ones. There are only two options; hide it all in the hope of a better future, or stand up and use it to fight. The former option is foolish. We’re all still playing catch up with the recently outed surveillance state. It’s a given that every American who isn’t… Read more »

Michael Chamberlain

I say get the UN out of our country it’s as corrupt as any other agency, they simply want control. While I’m not a violent person I will stand and fight for my rights and those of others living in this United States of America we as a whole need to run this organization out of our country and it’s business.
I’m asking that you as a patriot call and write to all in your local state and federal governments to abolish our involvement in the
So called United Nations it’s just insane to remain.


Screw the U.N. and screw the cheese eating surrender monkeys. The French are nothing but international busy bodies that think their noses belong in everybody’s business.

Jerry Condray

Withdraw from the UN, plain and simple!!!!


I hope they understand that the U.N. has no say in the rights of the United states. All signatures are null and void if the people did not have a say in any agreement. The United states representatives are supposed to represent us not against us. So the U.N. can just count us out of their regulations.

Yakie Lopez

“When law becomes injustice ”
“Resistance becomes duty”
Thomas Jefferson

Elmer B. Chavez

Thank God for Trump, it delays for a time the satanic one world order.

G.Lewis in Pa.

Other country’s do not decide for U.S.A.that is why we have a constitution ,and the second amendment of the bill of rights and armed citizens protect us against tyranny and people who try to interfear with our arms and ammunition.france and the other countries must not realize what “shall not be infringed”
means to Americans.we are citizens not subjects.this is why we love prez.Trump,he is for our second amendment.he does the talking ,we do the shooting! The un is not good for us.

L. Hasen

Who said that AMERICAN CITIZENS have to adhere to the U.N. and its rules and regulations. THEY want a war with AMERICAN gun owners I’m sure they’re willing and able to win it.

Jim Hovater

DUMP the UN and kick them out of America.


F@%& gun control.

Wild Bill

@mac, Yes, but it is better to say the Second Amendment is a Constitution level control on governments. The Second Amendment expresses the founders intention to fill the legal field regarding arms. The Founders preempted future Congresses, presidents, bureaucrats, the states, counties and cities, and the entire judiciary from making laws, rules or regulations regarding arms.
The Constitution and our Rights (limitations on governments) are being ignored. We must get back to the Constitution.

Rich in Mo.

I’m not a citizen of Ghana, France or the U.N. and am beholden to none of those entities. The numbers are on our side. There are more gun owners in the U.S. than soldiers in the largest 26 armies in the world COMBINED. You can write whatever you want in your little resolution, good luck enforcing it.

Jim Hovater

Amen! Unfortunately, you’re speaking to the choir.

Wild Bill

@Rich in Mo. I admire your sentiment, but the vast majority of the gun owners in the U.S. are disciplined of neither mind nor body. Unconstitutional federal and state statute have been enforced, successfully, in the U.S. since 1934. Congress, presidents, the judiciary, and bureaucrats have been preferring more regulation to our Constitutional Rights and enforcing it with more agencies, bigger budgets, and set up convictions ever since. If Congress consents to this, it will become the equivalent to a federal statutes. Ammunition makers will have no choice but to submit. Our only defense will be a whole new Congress… Read more »

Rich in Mo

How many bump stocks have been turned over in states that have outlawed them? Last I heard it was zero. “Assault” gun registration in NY? In the teens. I don’t think you’re speaking for any vast majority but whatever; sounds like you have already capitulated.

Wild Bill

@Rich in Mo, Capitulated? No. The UN’s POM is aimed at producers not end users. Bump stock owners are end users. Although end users, like ourselves are many and unknown to the government, producers of small arms and ammunition are few and known to the government. The people that run the companies will have to submit. Now, the end users: Do not place your faith in “… more gun owners in the U.S. than soldiers in the largest 26 armies in the world COMBINED.” because most are old, fat, undisciplined, ignorant of military operations, haven’t the logistics, leadership, or secure… Read more »


Trump is not ” our boy “. If you have not realized that fact yet you are not paying attention. There is no way to stop the assault on our God given rights politically. It is going to require the participation of most of these ” gun owning Americans” I am afraid most are too ignorant and cowardly to accomplish anything.

Wild Bill

@church, I needed an indirect object for the purpose of English grammar sentence construction. I suppose that I could have picked better.
It really isn’t about cowardly or courageous. The path that you imply would be won by logistics. We haven’t sufficient logistics. Please see FM 100-5.
Educating the president costs little. Sending uncorrupted yet candidates takes a lot more effort, but we have what we need to do that.


It is time to tell the UN to stuff it. We are a nation that can take care of it’s self. Our firearms and ammo are none of it’s business.

John Dunlap

There’s no longer a choice. The globalists are determined to turn the U.N. into an autocratic one world government, and unless we get out, they’ll succeed. The United States must withdraw from the United Nations, now, before another President takes office. Without the 20% or so of its budget the U.S. represents, this evil entity will wither away, as it should. Imagine what will happen if another leftist like Obama manages to slither into the White House while the U.S. is still beholden to U.N. treaties. Prepare to be a good little subject of the North American Union, for starters.

David Keith

Exactly true.


un knows what 2 kiss & when