The question is, why does the federal government allow state constitutions to exist? If state constitutions are going to have differing provisions on an individual's right to bear arms, which they do (see below), provisions that are almost never worded (or framed) the same as the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and rarely worded identically to other states' provisions, isn't it an inherent corruption of the 2nd amendment that the states pursue? And that the US Constitution and federal government allows?
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
The answer is - and this is really important - the Bill of Rights is
not a
mandate of uniformity for the states. You may
think it is, but it isn't. The founders were coming from the starting point of the Articles of Confederation, and they had many staunch political opponents in the form of the anti-federalists, people who valued states rights and were very much against the idea of centralized power in government. Madison drafted the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd amendment) initially as a conciliatory gesture to the states' rights loving anti-federalists in hopes that they wouldn't convene another constitutional convention, which might overturn the newly drafted US Constitution. (Many of his political
allies thought the Bill of Rights were a waste of time! Thankfully,
he didn't.)
State constitutions are certainly subordinate to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so why is it that we even have states? The answer is because there are cultural and regional differences between people who live in different parts of the country, and those differing peoples should live under a local or regional sovereignty that more closely reflects their values. (The antithesis of the British crown ruling the colonies from afar.) No, the states don't get to have their own 2nd amendment, per se, but their state constitution gets to interpret the 2nd amendment of the Constitution in accordance with the local values of the people. (At least in theory. Often state senators pursue agendas that aren't in accordance with local values.) And don't tell me, "There shouldn't be
any interpretation." Everything is interpreted - or misinterpreted - by people, even the simplest of statements.
So yes, it's true that states often misinterpret the Constitution and the 2nd amendment by drafting laws that violate the fundamental principles listed in the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. That's when the courts kick in and those laws are challenged on up to the federal level where they are subjected to constitutional scrutiny. The National Rifle Association has done a good job of pursuing these cases over the last 30 years.
This concept also applies to the 1st amendment. Pornography laws vary from state to state, though there are people, using the Bill of Rights
as a pretext, who would like to tell North Dakota or Utah that they should have the same pornography laws as California...even though
the populations in those states may have very different values on such things. And this brings us to the most effective tactic of those who pursue an agenda of centralized government:
pitting the individual (and his rights) against the states. Centralized power addicts manipulate the individual into thinking the federal government (via the court) is his friend, that they are there to protect him against those mean old provincial thinkers at the state level. The federal legislature also does this, as in the passage of the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, which took the election of senators away from state legislatures and into the hands of individuals.
An individual's rights are profoundly important in the US, but problem with taking all power away from the state and putting it into the hands of individuals is that
individuals can not stand up to a centralized federal authority gone crazy with power with the same effectiveness that a state can. And when the states' powers are completely gone, who will protect the individual from the feds? Think of it this way: the state is to a citizen what the labor union is to a 19th century coal miner. And yes, like labor unions, states can go in the wrong direction and do the wrong thing, but the founders tried to strike a balance...and keep the federal government at bay.
When all is said and done, the forced reciprocity legislation currently in Congress isn't the
worst thing that could happen, since the armed citizen is also a formidable obstacle to an oppressive centralized government, but I won't support it on principle because it does erode the sovereignty of states. By itself, it isn't a bad thing, but in concert with all those other things well....
