[Dead Corpse]

And you still haven't found a single decision or authority to support the assertion that state firearms regulations violate the 2nd Amendment.
How long do you need?

The Constitution pretty much speaks for itself. All you have to do is take your fingers out of your ears.

[Roscoe]

The Constitution pretty much speaks for itself.

Begging the question pretty much speaks for itself.

[tpaine]

Or our silly roscoe could take the blinders off his eyes and recognise Justice Harlan as an 'authority':

           In its discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court stated:

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

> the right to keep and bear arms;<

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777