Fellow Radicals:
I'm in the middle of reading an outstanding book called "The Second
Amendment Primer" by Les Adams. This guy is a lawyer who started out
vaguely in favor of gun control, and then decided to research it. His
research is unbelievably broad. Very good book. Very readable.
But here's the thing that shocked me, and a question for you lawyer
types. He says that the original Federal Constitution, as written and
interpreted, was never intended to supersede state laws. Only with the
advent of the 14th amendment were provisions of the Bill of Rights
brought under the Constitution in such a way that they superseded state
laws.
What this means is that prior to the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment
(and others) had no effect on laws passed by the states. They could ban
guns outright, and no one could say a thing (or limit free speech for
that matter). Apparently the idea was that the Constitution (and Bill of
Rights) was specifically aimed at the federal government.
I've found this to be astonishing. It never occurred to me that the
Constitution did not trump any state laws. It seems like an incredible
idea. If the federal government says you can, for instance, speak
freely, but the state says you can't, what's the good of the
Constitution in the first place? Yeah, it prevents the _federal_
government from trampling your rights, but not the states, whose
jurisdiction you are more immediately under.
Anyone know if this guy's interpretation of the Constitution is correct?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:30:02 EDT