Actually, signing on to any treaty which violates the Constitution entails the same process as passing an Amendement; 2/3 of Congress passes (not gonna happen) and 2/3 of the states to pass (again, not gonna happen). This is a big non-sequiter that too many people (who are uninformed) are getting their panties all in a wad. People: get your information from reliable sources. Just because its on the interweb does not make it true. Same for Fox News or MSNBC.
Oh really? And I suppose the same would have been required for any gun control ever passed in the United States? After all the 2nd does say "shall not be infringed". So wouldn't they need the same thing to "violate" the Constitution?
No. Why? Because they, the federal government, legally decide what is and is not an infringement.
(And the SCOTUS as part of that government then occasionally years later may alter the details, agree or disagree, or may not. And what is radical in the short term can have become accepted as normal by the time they get around to addressing the issue if ever. The NFA is a great example of this, most felt it was going to be struck down, antis and pro gun people alike, it was absolutely radical, yet years later it was normal and they intentionally found ways to work around it and make it Constitutional in cases like Heller.)
So it really just boils down to the interpretation of "infringe" or "violates the constitution". What interpretation do you think the individuals signing the treaty have? Do you think it is at all close to yours?
At the least they could make every part of the nation subject to the type of restrictions seen in D.C. and in addition include various restrictions on ammo, ammo sales, reloading and other forms of "manufacture" and other things related to the "problem" of "small arms proliferation".
It would then become law and in international partnership with nations around the world a step would be taken to reduce the problem of "small arms proliferation", something the UN talks of often.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.
Look under the conventional arms area.
They want a lot done about small arms.
They even want more done about ammunition:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/Ammunition/html/Ammunition.shtml
Do we get global gun treaties? Oh you bet:
http://www.iansa.org/un/global-gun-treaty.htm
(IANSA is one of the largest international groups promoting Gun Control or restrictions on 'SALW' or Small Arms and Light Weapons. A term used by the UN and during arms negotiations often.
Do they want more, they absolutely always do:
http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm
Governments will meet at the United Nations in New York, USA, 14-18 June 2010 to review progress on the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms.
Does that mean men in blue UN helmets or other fantasy scenarios you hear would come to pass? No. It would just mean there was new gun control enforced by the same LEO you already have.
It may be challenged, and some years in the future the SCOTUS may or may not address the issue, and even IF they do, they may choose to agree, let it stand, or only slightly alter it.
Enough citizens could even rally together to get their congressmen to cancel the treaty, but that could also not happen.
Currently our ATF is working hard at enforcing Mexican Gun Control, and Mexico is a poor nation with minimal influence in the world. What do you think will get done if the European Union or most of the security council is pressuring our government to make serious changes?
Do I think it will happen? No. But I think it won't happen because we won't let it. Not because I feel smug that they will consider it a violation of the 2nd Amendment and stop themselves.
