The recently concluded negotiations on the United Nations’ Global Framework on Through-Life Conventional Ammunition Management should be of grave concern to anyone who values the constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment.
The end product of the United Nation’s Open-Ended Working Group on Conventional Ammunition, the Framework met from June 23-27 for its first ever formal meeting in New York.
Adopted under the auspices of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, the Framework ostensibly focuses on improving the safety and security of ammunition under government control. However, as was proven last week, it’s yet another tool of anti-firearm nations and governmentally-funded NGOs to erode the sovereign rights of nations – particularly the United States – under the banner of “international consensus,” despite its inability to obtain it even at such a preliminary stage of the process.
As the Framework underwent deliberation last week, GRULAC nations (the Latin American and Caribbean Group) repeatedly attempted to insert language that would expand its scope far beyond ammunition held strictly under government control. Most notably, at the 11th hour, while final negotiations were concluding on the meeting’s report, the Mexican delegation attempted to insert language calling for ammunition marking requirements that were simply “in line with” with the Framework’s objectives, and not in strict adherence with its already agreed to language.
Though superficially innocuous, this phrase was a deliberate attempt at a gateway to extend the framework’s influence to the civilian ammunition market. In practice, that would mean international marking, tracing, and recordkeeping obligations imposed on not just every round of ammunition produced, but on every civilian shooter, hunter, and sportsman in America. As with every anti-firearm “political agreement” at the UN, had it succeeded, U.S. manufacturers, retailers and users would be forced to comply with a global regulatory regime that no Congress ever approved and no American citizen voted for.
The United States delegation, to its credit, worked tirelessly to ensure that the final report excluded this and similar overreaching provisions. This was no small feat, as even our supposed friends in the room remained silent on the issue.
Equally notable was Russia’s complete disassociation from the framework, both politically and legally. In a statement condemning the adoption of the Framework itself, Russia made note of the fact that their concerns have been systematically disregarded, especially their opposition to the injection of “gender perspectives” into what is ostensibly a technical instrument. Whether one agrees with Russia’s rationale or not, their dissociation underscores a fundamental reality: this is hardly a truly “global” instrument when a major ammunition manufacturing power refuses to participate on principle.
Another troubling aspect of the Framework’s early negotiations has been the quiet but persistent influence of ideologically driven actors masquerading as neutral advisors to the Secretariat. It was impossible for anyone in the room to ignore the steady presence of familiar anti-firearm activists embedded within the Secretariat. These individuals, many of whom have built careers lobbying against civilian gun ownership, used their advisory role to steer discussions toward ever-expanding obligations into the civilian realm—despite the clear boundaries established in the framework’s mandate.
This includes a heavy hand on the Group of Governmental Experts, a body of the Framework that will not only influence the direction of the Framework, but do so through informal, intercessional meetings – or, in plain English, secretively. Even at this early stage, the UNODA has noted no fewer than 116 so-called “experts” it has identified to support this body. While the identities of these supposed experts has been left a mystery, the sheer number alone indicates that the anti-firearm international organization will be able to exert control over any decisions of the group.
Thankfully, the United States delegation recognized the shenanigans and devoted considerable diplomatic capital to ensuring that any group of international “experts” also include representatives from both U.S. user groups and manufacturers, while also ensuring the final text stayed focused on government-held ammunition stockpiles and excluded provisions that would effectively lead to international marking reporting mandates on all civilian small arms and ammunition. Their efforts preserved the bright line between national sovereignty over civilian gun rights and the legitimate goals of preventing the diversion of government stockpiles into illicit markets.
While the final report of this meeting marks the end of the current negotiating cycle, this fight is far from over. The next formal meeting of states is not scheduled until 2027, but there will be extensive “intercessional work”—informal sessions, working groups, and technical consultations—in the intervening years. The National Rifle Association remains the only U.S.-based firearms and ammunition user organization that participated in these proceedings, and we are committed to remaining engaged. We will continue to monitor and counter efforts by anti-firearm countries to use the UN process as a backdoor assault on lawful civilian ownership and the constitutional rights of American citizens.
In the months (and years) ahead, it’s imperative that all supporters of the Second Amendment remain vigilant. While these UN discussions may seem remote or abstract, the strategies they develop—and the language they slip into their instruments—often reappear in domestic policy proposals, court filings, and international trade negotiations. Rest assured that the NRA will continue to provide analysis, advocacy, and representation to ensure that the rights of American gun owners are neither diminished nor dictated by international bureaucrats and activist networks determined to undermine our freedoms.
“at the UN, had it succeeded, U.S. manufacturers, retailers and users would be forced to comply with a global regulatory regime that no Congress ever approved and no American citizen voted for.”
The U.N. is and organization but operates as though a ‘foreign power of its own separate country’ – its member states comprise the U.N. and its authority is derived from that member state coalition thus ‘foreign power’ – however, its power is not what people think. It takes a member state willingness to implement a U.N. edict and a member state can not do so if they wish. However, it does not mean the people of the member state are bound by the U.N. edict and obligated to follow it if the member state chooses to implement the edict. Our constitution gives the people the freedom from having the edicts of a foreign power forced upon them – we fought war to keep that from happening and won so….
And how exactly are they going to “force” U.S. manufacturers, retailers and users to comply? They can’t legally or legitimately send U.N. troops, they have no police powers to use against the ‘people’ on U.S. soil, there is no U.S. law obligating the U.S. to it, no act of congress obligating the congress to it – and even if some way or another the U.S. government was obligated to it the people have no obligation to follow any U.N. edict or obligation to any U.S. law that’s trying to enforce an edict of a ‘foreign power’ (which the U.N.), so how are they going to ‘force’ the U.S. people (i.e. U.S. manufacturers, retailers and users) to comply with it?
The U.S. has stretched way beyond its intended scope using ‘perceived authority’ it granted its self. Now today its inhabited by a bunch of Marxist Socialists and crazy people behind the scenes coming up with plans and ideas they try to ratify into edicts through member states to give them an appearance of legitimacy. Its like the typical radical left wing ideology thought process “The sky is blue, blue is a color, color is a light we see at a certain frequency, therefore we can decide if people have light bulbs in their homes because they emit light because we say so”
Gasp! Did pigs just start flying? The Left Wing liberal media did something – The Liberal Media Destroyed the Democrats’ Anti-Trump Flood Narrative.
“The finger-pointing frenzy is in full swing on social media, with viral posts now blaming everything from DOGE to vague ‘federal budget cuts’ for the tragedy. However, these claims were literally debunked last week. For example, WIRED admitted that the NWS did its job perfectly.
‘But meteorologists who spoke to WIRED say that the NWS accurately predicted the risk of flooding in Texas and could not have foreseen the extreme severity of the storm. What’s more, they say that what the NWS did forecast this week underscores the need to sustain funding to the crucial agency.’
…
They’re not alone either. On Monday, the left-wing outlet Politico also admitted that the anti-Trump narrative surrounding the tragedy is dead wrong.
‘And let’s be clear: Just as my Playbook colleague Zack Stanton set out in yesterday’s newsletter, there’s still absolutely no evidence that Trump’s NWS cuts had any impact on what happened in Texas on Friday morning. As you’d expect, local and national reporters alike have been digging away at this angle incredibly hard — and so far, the picture that’s emerging is one of a National Weather Service that did its job as a catastrophic weather event unfolded.’
…
As for the claim that the NWS was understaffed because of cuts? That’s bogus too:
‘The National Weather Service office in New Braunfels, which delivers forecasts for Austin, San Antonio and the surrounding areas, had extra staff on duty during the storms, Runyen said.
Where the office would typically have two forecasters on duty during clear weather, they had up to five on staff.
‘There were extra people in here that night, and that’s typical in every weather service office — you staff up for an event and bring people in on overtime and hold people over,’ Runyen said.
…”
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/07/07/the-liberal-media-destroyed-the-democrats-anti-trump-flood-narrative-n4941503
The United States should withdraw from the UN….and save that $13 BILLION (accounting for 28% of the U.N budget) in annual dues. Not to mention the billions in American military equipment.
i’m with you, jimby. half a dozen idf caterpillar d9 bulldozers shove all their garbage into the hudson. gtfo.
Not at first.
First, evict their butts to other countries.
Second, turn the buildings into an ICE detention facility.
Then when the illegal aliens are deported, third, turn it into a prison to hold all these violent left wingers and when its filled to capacity bulldoze it into the Hudson with them inside.
Then when thats done give the land to the NRA to build a new NRA branded building they are not going to occupy….just to PO New York.
with ruthless (she couldn’t come) german efficiency.
having been made aware that other scenarios may possibly represent multiple improvements, we hereby take it under advisement to modify the original imperative.
jib cut admired.