Not true, the new Constitution put limitations on the state's powers as well. See particularly Art IV sections 1 and 2, and the 10th amendment which affects states by it's terms.
Some Courts, the Georgia Supreme Court for example, ruled that the Second Amendment restricted the states as well. (Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)). Some commentators as stated this as well. William Rawle, possibly the original "Philadelphia lawyer", who was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, wrote:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Ed. 1829
The book cited was an early work in the field of American constitutional law which was adopted as a textbook at West Point and other institutions. The Quote is taken from CHAPTER X entitled: "OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS."
The first sentence confirms what I have been saying all along.
The second sentence is what, no doubt, would happen as a result. IMO, unsuccessfully (See VICTOR D. QUILICI vs. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE ).
I'm not concerned with what the Georgia State Supreme Court says. They carry absolutely no weight when is comes to the other 49 states. Find a USSC ruling that says that and now we're talking.