Barack Obama has announced that on June 3 he will sign a UN treaty banning guns and registering gun owners.

Click here to read article on: Obama Administration to Sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty “In the Very Near Future”.

Click here to read: Obama To Sign International Gun Control Treaty On June 3rd

Click on: Congressman Mark Meadows per Kevin Klein on UN Arms Treaty.

no un gunjpgSubject: Fwd: Treaties and The Constitutionmmw_constitution_010410
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:43:44 -0400
From: Robert Levy (is chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors.)
To: Fremont V. Brown III

Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Levy
Subject: Re: Treaties and The Constitution
Date: September 15, 2011 10:00:10 PM EDT
To: Eichenbaum Dan

On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Dan Eichenbaum wrote:

Q: Any treaty properly ratified supersedes any competing section of a state constitution and applies directly to state law and, therefore, to citizens of the state.

A: Correct, unless the treaty violates the US Constitution

Q: Any treaty, even if properly ratified, cannot supersede, contradict, or abolish any portion of the Constitution of the US.

A: That’s my view, but: (a) the scope of the treaty power is now being litigated in Bond v US (see below); and (b) if the treaty implicates national defense or foreign policy, the executive branch has unilateral authority that exceeds the authority given to Congress on domestic matters.

Q: Would it follow then, that, if any properly ratified treaty contradicts the US Constitution, it would become law of the land until a grievance were filed in court and litigated up to (presumably) the Supreme Court where its constitutionality would be determined?

A: Correct. Treaties are ordinarily not self-executing; they have to be implemented by statute. So any litigation would challenge the implementing statute.

Q: Who would have standing to file such a suit?

A: Anyone who suffers a concrete and particularized injury that differs from an injury suffered by the general public. For example, if a treaty denied a DC resident the right to possess a handgun in his home, that resident would have standing to challenge the statute that implemented the treaty.

Q: I know that individuals have 10th Amendment rights according to the recent SC decision, but would this event be a 10th Amendment case?

A: An individual challenge to a statute implementing a treaty would be an enumerated powers case — i.e., the federal government attempting to do something for which it has no constitutional authority. If the federal government intruded on state sovereignty, that could be challenged under the 10th Amendment. If the federal government violated rights secured by the US Constitution, that could be challenged by invoking the particular right involved — e.g., the 2d Amendment.