Even a treaty cannot override the protections of the Bill of Rights. Treaties can create new governmental powers, such as the power to regulate migratory birds, but they cannot violate the Constitution itself.
The provision in question reads:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That last should be parsed as " any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding". Not "any Thing in the (Constitution) or (Laws of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding". When referring to itself the Constitution says "this Constitution" except in the prescribed Presidential oath of office where it's spelled out as "the Constitution of the United States"
So while Bill and Hill might try that scheme, an honest Supreme Court would not uphold it.
And many, many folks, including many in law enforcement and the military, would not obey or enforce it.
Aye, there's the rub! An "honest" USSC. Truth be known at this point in time, I'd have an easier time believing in an "honest" USSC than I would trusting in law enforcement and the military to go against orders. Look at New Orleans. The sad fact is that the liberal antigun curriculums that have been running rampant in the public & private schools for the last 40 years have come home to roost. The old cops who really believed in the 2nd Amendment are almost all of them retired and the new centurions are elitist and globalist and ignorant. I know, I've been watching them graduate from high school for the last eighteen years. I can only reach the open minds in my classroom. Fewer and fewer are open to ideas that challenge the propaganda every year.