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

[smoke13]

The UN ATT meeting is approaching in a few days, which is a continuation from last year's ATT meeting (because they decided to delay the vote until Obama's lame duck session).

I believe the ultimate goal of the ATT is to circumvent our constitutional law or supersede it with international law via UN treaties that are controlled by the UN council, which is a direct assault on this country’s sovereignty.

At the very least this treaty if ratified by our congress would most likely have consequences on import and export of munitions and firearms.

What do you guy's think will result from this?

One article said the following:
"The United Nations is polishing up a global Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention that would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms. This treaty — which would also mandate creation of a national collection agency for those guns and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — has the long-standing and enthusiastic backing of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

The UN website for the ATT.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

Article from The Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/comment...e-gun-grab

Obama and the ATT - Obama urged to back tough arms trade treaty at U.N. talks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/2...0120130226

[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. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined. (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.