Or to put my position more truthfully-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution.
If you disagree with that statement, please show me where that has not happened.
Yours is a truly Orwellian view of the role of government and what limitations are imposed through the consent of the governed.
Your view would seem to be that anything which is not forbidden to government is permitted. This turns the notion of limited government on its head and requires the people at every turn to actively constrain government despite the lack of any explicit authority on their part to act.
Yours, unfortunately, is a common view and necessary for the adoption of socialism. Without the power to act in any matter whatever, the government would find itself unable to control events and constrain freedom.
Legislators who infringe the right to keep and bear arms without the explicit power to do so are tyrants. A Constitution which would permit such infringement is an instrument of tyranny.
rp wrote: Or to put my position more truthfully-- The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution.
Either way, you think a State may infringe a fundamental right.
If you disagree with that statement, please show me where that has not happened.
I thought we were talking about your opinion. Why are you throwing in case law?
It would make the discussion go more smoothly if you would be clear on when you are giving your opinion vs when you are stating case law, IMO.