If there is no state right to keep and bear arms, there's simply nothing for the federal government to infringe. It dies there.
I'm not saying that because there is no state right, the federal government is free to do what, pass some federal gun law only applicable to California?
As far as federal gun laws go, I don't care how they came to be (and neither does Congress). Maybe the commerce clause, maybe the general welfare clause, I don't know.
Sure, they can be challenged under the commerce clause if that was the source of power, or the general welfare clause, but I want to see that federal gun law challenged under the second amendment.
Wouldn't you think that an assault weapon is exactly the weapon that the founding fathers wanted to protect from federal infringement? I mean, we can perhaps save the "individual or collective right" argument for another day, but at least let's define the type of arms that "shall not be infringed". But, no second amendment challenge. Why not?
How was Silveira vs Lockyer not such a challenge? The Supreme Court had an opportunity to enshrine in its historical collection of error a decision supporting the "collective right" nonsense. They didn't trouble themselves no doubt because Miller vs US contradicts Silveira completely.
Timothy Bean of Texas was deprived of his right to keep and bear arms forever for having been found "guilty" of keeping shotgun cartridges in Mexico. The Supreme Court offered him no relief from federal laws which infringe his right to keep and bear arms.
The Fifth Circuit has explicitly declared the RKBA an individual right but found it "reasonable" that Emerson be denied his right to keep and bear arms without him having committed any violent act. The Supreme Court failed to use this opportunity to protect a right to keep and bear arms.
I haven't the case to cite, but I have been told that there is at least one Federal District which has ruled the federal prohibitions against machine gun manufacture to be invalid. Only fear of murder by jack-booted government thugs prevents such manufacture.
Please describe the opportunities to challenge judicial error regarding the Second Amendment which have been ignored by the pro-gun community. Which cases should have been pursued which were not? Which key decisions could have occurred and how would they have allieviated the infringements which we now suffer?