[BlackElk]

Actually, SCOTUS disagrees with IYAS9YAS and agrees with Red Badger. There was a case in the 1930s interpreting (applying?) a Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. Litigants claimed that their 2nd Amendment RTKBA was infringed by provisions outlawing the hunting of Canadian geese flying over the US. SCOTUS essentially placed the treaty on a par with the Constitutional provision and, since the treaty was the later enactment, used well-recognized appellate standards to apply the treaty provisions in derogation of the 2nd Amendment RTKBA.

I learned this in law school which was a while back and, while freely acknowledging that this outrage is not on the top of my stack of things to obsess over, I do not believe that the SCOTUS decision in question has ever been overturned, modified or superseded.

This matter is a ticking time bomb which suggests that a treaty which purports to void the entire Bill of Rights would, if ratified, actually do so with no more than the signature of some Demonrat POTUS and 2/3 ratification by Demonrat and RINO Senators.

[IYAS9YAS]

There was a case in the 1930s interpreting (applying?) a Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. Litigants claimed that their 2nd Amendment RTKBA was infringed by provisions outlawing the hunting of Canadian geese flying over the US.

Game-taking laws do not violate the second amendment - they do not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms.