The NRA and others in the U.S. opposed the ATT and U.S. becoming a party to the treaty on grounds that it would interfere with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Review the language of the treaty and assess whether, in your view, it creates any obligations on states that could interfere with the 2nd Amendment as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Subsequent to the U.S. signing the Treaty, but prior to ratification, the U.S. will have no problem complying with the "objects and purposes" of the treaty without interfering with the language of the 2nd Amendment. After all, the overarching purpose of the treaty is to regulate the international flow of weapons such that they do not end up in the hands of individuals that will use them for illegitimate purposes -- not to regulate the ownership and use of weapons within a particular state.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once the U.S. ratifies the treaty as becomes strictly bound by all of its provisions, it is possible that the treaty could be the impetus for a new regulatory system for weapons in the U.S. that could interfere with the 2nd Amendment. The treaty applies to "small arms and light weapons," which encompasses the variety of weapons that Americans may legitimately own in the context of a "well regulated militia," as interpreted by the Supreme Court. If the U.S. government were to prohibit the ownership of these weapons, that would clearly violate the 2nd Amendment; however, the regulation scheme required by the Treaty is likely okay.
Ultimately, the question is this: what kind of regulatory system will the U.S. put in place to comply with this Treaty? The language of the Treaty is a minimum requirement, so the U.S. is free to adopt a stricter standard. Between the standard required by the Treaty and outright prohibition, the U.S. must make a judgment call when determining its standard.