The Feds hold that the RKBA can be 'regulated'. Ashcrofts recent decision claims that ALL existing fed gun laws perfectly conform to the 2nd.
The administration also agrees that states, like CA, can 'regulate' as much as they like.
Ashcroft & the feds are against the USSC hearing the new 'Emerson' case, for fear that the 2nd amendment will be 'incorporated' as an individual right, as written, thus invalidating most existing federal & state gun law infringements. -- They lobby for 'business as usual' on gun rights.
THe 14th is not an 'evil' amendment. - This view is simple propoganda by 'states rights' movements, working to undermine respect for constitutional principles on individual liberty.
Yes, but ALL existing fed gun laws are in direct contradiction to the 10th. (Too bad many, if not most, conservatives don't honor the 10th Amendment.)
THe 14th is not an 'evil' amendment.
It's extremely poorly written. And its specific wording leads to many problems.
It's poorly written, because it's not obvious that the 14th is intending prohibit states from infringing on ALL the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." Then the 14th says that the citizen of each state has the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen of the U.S. But does that mean a privilege from Congressional laws restricting speech, or a state or local law restricting speech? (From reading the history, I think they meant to have the 14th amendment protect citizens from state and local infringements of speech.)
Also, if the 14th applies the 1st Amendment to state and local governments, it effectively means that there can be NO state or local laws against false advertising (for example) or slander. It's workable to have a federal prohibition against ANY law restricting freedom of speech, but that's not practical at the state or local level.