Treaties and Gun Control

[Waitone]

I convinced myself for some time now that the real threat to the Second Amendment is through international treaties and "agreements".

Anti-second amendment types will admit to the loss of elections because of opposition to gun rights. Congress for now appears to have no stomach for in-your-face legislation though some curious bills are tossed into the hopper from time to time. The supreme court finally answered a fundamental question (I think). Concealed carry laws at the state level dominate the landscape and now a movement appears to be spreading to expand open carry laws. The current dominant political party is uncharacteristically quiet about moving gun control forward.

Meanwhile our new president appears to be more willing to play international ball than past presidents. Back to my original point. I think international treaties, "agreements", and organizations are destined to force unconstitutional gun control measures on the American public all in the name of harmonizing US with international concensus.

My question: Does the US constitution permit international treaties, "agreements" to supersede US constitution and law?

[vranasaurus]

The answer to your question is no.

A treaty being signed by the president and ratified by the Senate cannot violate the consitution anymore than a bille passed by congress and signed by the president.

This only applies if the Supreme Court rules that the treaty, or any law passed to enforce a provision of a treaty, violates the constituion.

Lets say some treaty was signed and ratified that required the US to ban all handguns as part of the treaty. The congress would then have to pass a law to enforce that part of the treaty. The only problem is that any such law would clearly violate the ruling in Heller.