While maneuverings around Iran and chatter about human rights reform have dominated the headlines coming out of Turtle Bay, another issue is lurking. Delegates have gathered at a preparatory committee meeting to plan a conference that will conduct a five-year review of the United Nations’ efforts to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. In other words, the United Nations is presenting itself with yet another opportunity to try to clamp down on the gun trade, which should make Americans who still care about the Second Amendment nervous.

When last the United Nations trod this path, in 2001, the result was a “Programme of Action” focusing on aspects of the illicit weapons trade that put illegal guns in the hands of guerrillas and terrorists. In the conference scheduled to start in late June, America’s mission to the United Nations, under the leadership of John Bolton, plans to try to steer the discussion toward ways of better implementing the relatively restrained 2001 agreement, such as destroying excess government stockpiles of small arms, tightening security on remaining stockpiles, and improving the ability to trace weapons.

The United Nations, however, mightn’t stop there. In 2001, America had to fight efforts to include demands for provisions limiting civilian ownership of guns. Already such talk is surfacing again. On Monday, Mexico’s delegation submitted a “concept paper” to the preparatory meeting suggesting “the civilian possession of small arms represents a serious challenge to the security of the international community and that of the States.” It gets even worse: “One of the sources of the illegal market [in small arms] are the legal owners, [so] there is an evident need for the enactment and enforcement of civilian possession regulations, with a view to preventing such flows from taking place.”

Such language may make it into a final agreement, or it might not. At Turtle Bay, it’s always hard to tell. Richard Patterson, the managing director of a gun industry group, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, tells us that, as in any treaty negotiation, defining terms provides an opportunity for mischief and treaty mission creep. Just as surely as Mr. Patterson is at the meeting to represent the gun industry – and lawful gun owners – representatives of antigun groups are also swarming around the meeting looking for opportunities to advance their agenda. One such group, a London-based George Soros creation called the International Action Network on Small Arms, is swarming the U.N. event to push for stricter gun controls. Having failed to in the our Congress, legislatures, and courts, the gun control advocates are turning to the United Nations to end what Joseph Story called the “palladium of the liberties of a republic.”

Nor should Americans assume that, if our delegation can’t block a problematic provision, the Second Amendment will protect them in the face of a mischievous U.N. treaty. Elsewhere in the Constitution, the second section of Article VI provides that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” It isn’t entirely clear that the Second Amendment would trump an international treaty, if one were to arise.

But it is clear that if the United Nations goes this route, it would put the world body in direct confrontation with the American founders. It’s too soon to tell from the preliminary discussions how much the United Nations will try to accomplish when the June meeting convenes. But it’s not too soon for our representatives at Turtle Bay to go on yellow alert. If anti-civilian ownership provisions do find their way into a treaty, President Bush’s expected refusal to sign would only be partial comfort. Once a treaty is drafted, it could float around for years until there fetched up in the White House a president prepared to sign.