I think most of us here know that even a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution but that doesn't tell the whole story.
, it was not firmly established that the 2A had anything to do with protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms. In fact, most lower courts had ruled otherwise. Even after these cases, the lower federal courts have generally read these cases very narrowly, some so narrowly that they believe the 2A applies only to a revover
kept in your home. There are lots of posts on these cases and Al Norris has done a herculean job in keeping up with the major cases.
Given the fledgling nature of 2A jurisprudence and demonstrated hostility of many on the bench, it would be unwise to assume the courts will take on the mantle of champions for 2A rights. Some members of the Supreme Court believe it is perfectly appropriate to consider current international law in interpreting our constitution. Thus, it is entirely plausible for the Court could refer to the U.N. treaty and other international law to help define the scope of our 2A rights, especially if we are signatories to the treaty.
So, what might the treaty do to infringe upon our rights, or, rather, upon our privileges? We don't know for sure since the treaty has not been drafted. However, a look at CIFTA
might provide some insight as to what many countries believe to be appropriate regulation of small arms.
The operative provision of the treaty starts out with a BANG! It defines "illicit manufacturing" as the manufacture or assembly of firearms or ammunition from components illicitly trafficked or manufacture or assembly without a license from the government. Art.I, sec.1. Thus, every reloader would have to be licensed. Even reloading with the little Lee Classic Loader would require a license. Article VIII would require confiscation of any illicitly manufactured firearms or ammo and would prohibit auction or sale to private business or individuals.
Is there a constitutional right to reload ammo? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about it and I'm not sure how many shooters would consider this a fundamental right. Certainly, a hostile judiciary would not.
Furthermore, the president would likely have authority to implement many aspects of the treaty without Congressional approval. The treaty, ratified by the Senate as contemplated by the Constitution, would give the president that authority. The national government would not implement full changes immediately; but creeping, incremental change would occur.
Don't let the hyperbole of a few people blind you to the real possibility of what might happen. Maybe I'm wrong about all this but I, for one, do not wish to take that chance.