Instapundit today takes on the Washington Post for their editorial criticizing Ashcroft's reversal of DOJ policy on the Second Amendment.

Professor Reynolds correctly points out that "prosecution for illegally carrying guns doesn't violate the right to keep and bear arms anyway. Scholarship on the Second Amendment is almost completely in agreement on this point."

The Professor also correctly observes that state constitutional protections are greater than their federal counterpart.

As a bit of a refresher for those who have been concentrating on other issues lately, ourselves included,

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Compare that with article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution:

“The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

According to the Colorado Supreme Court (cite below)

The Colorado Constitution, like the constitution of many other states, expressly guarantees the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense and the defense of property. Four states have right to bear arms provisions which are identical to Colorado's. (Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma). Miss. Const. art. III, § 12; Mo. Const. art. I, § 23; Mont. Const. art. III, § 12; and Okla. Const. art. II, § 26.

The constitutions of twenty other states expressly guarantee individuals the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense: Ala. Const. art. I, § 26; Ariz. Const. art. II, § 26; Conn. Const. art. I, § 15; Del. Const. art. I, § 20; Fla. Const. art. I, § 8; Ind. Const. art. I, § 32; Ky. Const. § I, para. 7; Mich. Const. art. I, § 6; Neb. Const. art. I, § 1; N.H. Const. pt. 1, art. 2a; N.D. Const. art. I, § 1; Or. Const. art. I, § 27; Pa. Const. art. I, § 21; S.D. Const. art. VI, § 24; Tex. Const. art. I, § 23; Utah Const. art. I, § 6; Vt. Const. ch. 1, art. 16; Wash. Const. art I, § 24; W.Va. Const. art. III, § 22; and Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 24.

Constitutions of several other states have been construed merely to guarantee the collective or "state's right" to bear arms for the maintenance of the militia See, e.g., Alaska Const. art. I, § 19; Haw. Const. art. I, § 15; La. Const. art. I, § 8; N.C. Const. art. I, § 24; S.C. Const. art. I, § 26. See also Ark. Const. art. II, § 5 (right to bear arms for "common defense"); Mass. Const. pt. 1 art. XVII (same).

Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have no constitutional provisions specifically guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

Source: Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 at 328, fn. 6 (Colo. Supreme Court, 1994)

As to Tennessee, the Colorado Court placed Art. 1 Section 26 of its State Constitution in the "collective" list. But we've been informed by Instapundit that Tennessee has always treated the right as individual, and this year declared the right to be "fundamental" and as strong as the state constitutional privacy right that protects abortion choice in Tennessee to a greater degree than Roe. Professor Reynolds should know, he has written at least one law review article on it, "Symposium: "The Law of the Land": Tennessee Constitutional Law: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Tennessee Constitution: a Case Study in Civic Republican Thought", 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 647.

Please let us know (you can use the comments feature) if the Colorado court has mischaracterized your state constitutional provisions on the issue, and we'll make note.