UN Arms Trade Treaty (March 18-28) - What does the ATT mean to us?

[smoke13]

The UN website for the ATT.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

Article from The Heritage Foundation

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/3/the-un-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-gun-grab

Obama and the ATT - Obama urged to back tough arms trade treaty at U.N. talks

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE91P00120130226

[BjornF16]

Any international accord (e.g. Treaty) must be in accord with the US Constitution...otherwise it is void. See Reid v. Covert (1957 US Supreme Court).

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"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;... ."
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. (emphasis added)

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm

Doesn't mean they won't try, but we have SCOTUS precedent on our side. Let's just pray that the five 2A backers presently seated in SCOTUS remain healthy over the next 4 years and that a conservative is elected as POTUS in 2016.