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.
rp responded in post 438: 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".*
rp wrote in post 551: 1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.
Now, how can you say you are drifting from the "standard model" to the "limited individual rights model" (which says there is an individual constitutional right to militia related weapons) and then say that you believe (ie, your interpretation) the Second Amendment is not meant to protect the RKBA from infringement by the States?
rp wrote: "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
You stating your opinion or case law? Recall that you made such a distinction in an earlier post. My answer depends on which you are talking about.