COMMENTARY\Local gun control isn't an intrusion from Washington.

Byline: James Bemis Special to the Daily News

As Simi Valley's City Council grapples with the sticky issue of concealed-weapons permits, the National Rifle Association has squared off with the gun-control advocates - not surprisingly. Another typical conservative vs. liberal issue? Don't bet on it. This one goes much deeper.

The NRA has already played its trump card - cited the Second Amendment to the Constitution which states that ". . . the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, according to the NRA argument, the City Council has no right to regulate the ownership of guns in our community.

One can bet that the NRA, for which I have high regard, decries liberal judges who make rather than interpret the law. And I'm sure it scorns the Supreme Court for usurping power not granted to it by the Constitution and applying the Bill of Rights to the states in case after case, always to the detriment of local government. And we know that the NRA stands for less federal government intrusion - for recapturing our lost self-governing powers and control of our communities from Washington.

Except when it applies to them.

The NRA's ambivalence on the matter of big government is not, of course, unique to them. The nanny state offers some advantages to everyone. That is its fatal charm. But it does point up a basic truth at the heart of our current national troubles: Almost no one, not even self-proclaimed constitutionalists, takes the Constitution seriously anymore.

The principles of federalism, upon which our government is based, provide for a minimum of federal government interference and a maximum of local governing authority. Only specific powers are delegated to the federal government. All other powers are reserved to the states or to the people. This is, theoretically, how we like it.

It then follows that the federal government's legislative authority - but not the states' or the people's - is restricted by the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. The Brady Bill and the federal ban on assault rifles are, therefore, unconstitutional; a local community's gun control curbs are not.

Much of our crime problem, which oppresses modern day America like a purgatorial plague, has its roots not in a lack of firepower by the police and citizenry but in the loss of control over the destiny of our communities. Beginning with the Warren Court era, the Supreme Court in particular has undercut law enforcement's ability to arrest and prosecute criminals.

The court, operating as unelected legislators in imposing its political will on the nation, has far exceeded its scope of authority in establishing what amounts to national guidelines for police procedures and throwing out tried-and-true methods of preventing crime. Many a hardened criminal has walked free, courtesy of an imprudent Supreme Court.

The NRA's efforts then would be better spent trying to get judges appointed and elected who understand their role as interpreters, not makers, of the law. This means undertaking the long, slow process of change that our republican form of government requires, without taking dubious shortcuts.

Certainly it is tempting to turn the liberals' arguments against them and employ the federal government's unauthorized powers for conservative purposes - in essence saying, "Now it's our turn." But a government this powerful is a threat to liberty in anyone's hands, reminding us of Thomas Jefferson's metaphor of the predicament of holding a wolf by the ears: One dares neither to hold on nor let go.

In the long run we are all better off living under the rule of constitutional law and a reinvigorated local self-government. Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies to the right wing, too. Ultimately, big government commanded by conservatives is no better than big government commanded by liberals.

The NRA may have good reason for recommending concealed-weapons permits here. But invoking the Second Amendment is wrongheaded and ultimately self-defeating, as it justifies the criticism leveled by the opponents. It is hypocritical to bemoan big government on one hand and demand its protection on the other. You simply can't have it both ways.