U.N. Treaty and American Gun Control

FactCheck.org is usually relatively unbiased and accurate.  Can't vouch for them on this, but it makes sense--as far as it goes.  The treaty, at least, ostensibly, is limited to international trade in guns. Notice use of the word "ostensibly."  Further, the Constitution takes precedence over treaties.  As long as Heller and McDonald are good law, this should ease concerns.  However, the Court can pull stunners and "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  On the other hand, what is ignored is that many popular  guns are made overseas and must be imported.  On the other hand, some popular foreign companies, such as Glock, do have some operations in the U.S. The article notes "The administration says."  Personally, I don't trust Obama when it come to guns or religious freedom. If the current Pres. is re-elected, negotiation and ratification of this obviously will  be an issue worth watching.  It would be naive to believe that Obama is not  basically hostile to the Second Amendment (e.g. his "Bittergate" speech, comments to the Brady Center, etc).  Hopefully, the Senate will not vote on the treaty before a new President takes office.  Then we will have a better feel for what could happen if such a treaty is approved.  The Senate's power to approve treaties and confirm Supreme Court nominations should alert everyone to the importance of senatorial elections.  Finally, overall, the UN leads way left.  They do not recognize a right of individuals to self-defense and favor maximizing government power.  One always needs to keep and eye cocked when the UN is involved.