Where?

Full text in relatively readable format is here: http://iapcar.org/?p=970

I poured my tired eyes over it and didn't see it right away. Doesn't mean its not there, but it doesn't look all that different than the proposed text published earlier this year. In fact there is some language specifically stating that private ownership is legitimate where permitted by law - and that ~wasn't~ in the original working document. (Preamble, item 14)
 
The following bit is important, from article 2:

B. Covered Activities

-          1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

-          2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

If the treaty applied to internal sales it should have specifically been mentioned here. This section defines "transfer" as International for the whole document.

I wish I had seen this earlier, too tired to go into it any further. But my first (tired) read through it suggests to me that it doesn't ban guns and, in fact, has been worded so that it can't.

Take Alex Jones for what he's worth but if it's true I hate to see what the next step will be:

Apparently the US is not going to sign this piece of shit treaty.  Huzzah!

CCRKBA press release

Ah, whatever. Looked at it again this morning over coffee.

The infowars.com clip is just wrong. Does no one know how to read legal language? Alex Jones' concern is entirely misplaced. The preamble specifically mentions that private ownership is not affected by the treaty where is it legal in the member states. Here is the actual language:

"Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;"

See what I bolded there? Inter alia means "among other things." This is not language that bans weapons for any use not specifically listed. This section, in fact, is a guiding principle and not an enforceable action item anyway.

The only thing I've seen so far that is potentially dangerous is Section 2, Item 4:

"  4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law."

Paragraph 1 is the list of things covered, tanks and so forth. The "control list" is undefined. While the US ~currently~ mandates records of each weapon from manufacture to sale by a dealer, and that satisfies this section,gun controllers could try to interpret this as mandating private ownership registration. Since no part of the treaty ANYWHERE refers to treatment of firearms inside a state it would be difficult to interpret this one section as applying to a "state's" internal affairs.

The entire treaty refers only to international transfer of weapons. This treaty wouldn't affect US gun owners at all and wouldn't have much affect on the US business of importing and exporting guns. We already do all the things the treaty calls for except for the reporting. All the treaty says is "Hey Nations, don't sell guns n' stuff to bad guys in other nations, mmmm'k?"

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Please.

I don't give a rats ass about the treaty itself, actually. What I care about is that the outrage it has generated here makes US gun owners look like a reactive, fearful, ignorant lot. If I'm wrong in my reading of the treaty language I'd love to hear it because right now we look exactly like the uneducated, fearful, frontier gun nuts that the Europeans think we are.

^^thanks for the clarification