You disagree? Oh, this I gotta hear. Wait, let me get something to drink and get settled.
OK, Ken H, tell me how wrong I am and why.
It would be more clear had you used the entire quote:
"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." rp
I believe that is your position, although I wouldn't bet any money on it because you also said:
I've always believed in the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model) interpretation of the second amendment.
But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model". [that individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service]
Can you see why I wouldn't bet any money on what you really believe the Second Amendment means?
Apples deals with state constitutions and state laws. Oranges deals with federal infingement of the rights protected by apples.
No one (that is no one) has successfully appealed a state RKBA infingement using the second amendment. States are bound only by their state constitution.
The second amendment, whatever the interpretation only restrains federal laws.
Now, back to my statement: "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
I again ask you to refute that statement. Look, you can't. Forget about it. Just stop throwing it around like it's some whacky pronouncement.