Under the Constitution that UN Treaty can not be used to Justify Gun Control / Confiscation because it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, which takes precedence.
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]
Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.
Also under the
General Rule of Constitutional Law. If Obama orders Law enforcement to Confiscate Firearms because of the UN Treaty any action taken by Gun Owners to Resist Confiscation including killing UN Blue Helmets or other Gun Confiscators is legal and Gun Owners can not be Convicted.
Also any Law Enforcer attempting to Enforce this Unconstitutional Law would not be protected from the consequences of his actions.
If a Law Enforcer were to Kill a Gun Owner who was resisting Confiscation, that Law Enforcer could be Prosecuted and convicted for Murder, since he, under the Constitution could not use the Defense that he was just enforcing the Law and following orders.
An Unconstitutional Law is No LawFrom Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,
is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statue leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,
confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone,
affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177
