"Isn't the UN a governmental agency?"I suspect that the US law you refer to would define "governmental agency" for the purpose of the law as meaning "agency of the United States government" (and further define "agency" of course).
The UN is properly called an inter-governmental organization. As are others such as the ILO, WHO, WTO, World Bank, etc.
.
The US's concern about others bringing weapons it doesn't like into its territory would be funny if it weren't so patently double-standard based and so viciously offensive.
Law that prohibits the carrying of certain arms by anyone not working for a "governmental agency" ... hmm, that might be what ya'd call the carrying of those arms by
non-state actors ...
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0108arms_body.htmlAt the UN conference, the United States opposed any language in the program of action that prevented the sale of arms to non-state actors. John R. Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, flatly said that the United States could not be part of an agreement that "would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government." While the United States wants to keep the option open to aid insurgents battling oppressive regimes around the world, this policy can adversely affect legitimate governments battling insurgencies.
The United States must also acknowledge its role in global arms trafficking. The United States is the largest producer of small arms in the world, with more than half of the world's producers based in the United States. Many arms traffickers buy relatively inexpensive firearms in the United States and resell them on the black market abroad because the penalties are relatively light compared with the penalties for smuggling drugs--and the profit margin is high. Arms brokers bypass regulatory norms and facilitate weapons transfers from states to non-state actors and buyers who could not otherwise obtain them.
The United States chooses to ignore the extent of this dynamic and sees any effort to address the matter as potential infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens to own firearms. At the UN conference, Bolton assured that "the United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms."
In the Americas, the consequences of ambivalence could be substantial. When peace comes to Colombia, thousands if not millions of small arms and light weapons--many of U.S. origin--will need to be decommissioned before they filter throughout the region and overseas.
In pandering to the gun lobby, the Bush administration showed what little regard it has for strengthening international efforts to deal with trafficking in small arms. President Bush promised to elevate the status of the Americas in his foreign policy. If he intends to follow through on this promise, his administration must realize that the problem of illicit trafficking in small arms is more complex and serious than the attention it gave to it at the UN conference, and acknowledge the implications for the Americas.
Hell -- the RKBA crowd and its puppets (who are speaking on behalf of the United States on the world stage) --
"acknowledge the implications" of anything for anyone but themselves?It is to laugh. Well, it would be ... if their vicious self-centredness, and resolute pursuit of their own self-interest regardless of whose expense it is at, didn't have such sad consequences for others.
.
(typo fixed)