Re: Imprisoned for Not Having a Gun?

[morgan@keilin.helsinki.fi (Joel Morgan)]

>From Tim May's posting:
> 
> At 6:57 AM 8/9/96, The Deviant wrote:
> 
> >I agree with you.  I don't have anything against guns, but either
> >requiring them or disallowing them is just plain dumb.  It should be
> >noted that the Supreme Court's interpretaion of "Congress shall make no
> >law" is basicly "no lawmaking body that holds any jurisdiction shall make
> >no law"...
> 
> On this last point, I used to think so, too. However, one of the law
> professors on one of these lists gave various examples purporting to show
> that this is not so, that local jurisdictions can and do pass laws which
> Congress is not permitted to pass.

[I'm not a lawyer, and I can't answer Tim's question per se, but...]

As I understand it, the Bill of Rights itself was conceived strictly as
a set of limitations on the -federal- government, but that the 14th
ammendment has been interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights to limit
state and local governments.  (When and with what scope, I'm not sure.)

Section 1 of the 14th Ammendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
                           --------------------------------------------
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
--------------------------------------------------------------------
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
------
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(emphasis mine)
-- 
=====================================================================
Joel.Morgan@Helsinki.FI              http://blues.helsinki.fi/~morgan
    "Over the mountains there are mountains."   -- Chang-rae Lee 
=====================================================================