It's not. The second amendment is to protect against federal infringement, not state infringement. Like I stated before, find for me one case where the second amendment was successfully used to thwart some state gun legislation. There are none.
Now, maybe you believe the bull$hit being spewed by tpaine that the second amendment protects your RKBA from state infringement. It doesn't and it never has. If it did, there would be at least one case where the courts have overturned some state gun law because it violated the second amendment. Ask tpaine to give you just one (he can't, there isn't one).
When a federal gun law is challenged, the second amendment is cited. Emerson, for example, violated a federal law which he challenged as violating the second amendment. This is where the federal courts get into their "traditional individual rights model" and "limited individual rights model", etc.
Apples and oranges, Ken H. You did read my post #558, didn't you? I really don't know that I can be any clearer.
"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
"You stating your opinion or case law?"
It's a fact, supported by case law.
Now, maybe you believe the bull$hit being spewed by tpaine that the second amendment protects your RKBA from state infringement. It doesn't and it never has.
Irrational opinion, belied by the clear words of our US Constitution.
If it did, there would be at least one case where the courts have overturned some state gun law because it violated the second amendment. Ask tpaine to give you just one (he can't, there isn't one).
Never said there was one, paulsen.
The day will come when the Fed courts are forced into such an opinion, however. When that happens, it will also destroy the feds basis for ~their~ infringements. -- Which should give you a little clue on why it hasn't happened yet.
Not that a rabid gungrabbing anti-constitutionalist like you could ever 'get' a clue, of course.
It's a fact, supported by case law.
As for case law: I don't recall where anyone has claimed that the States (or the Feds, for that matter) have been restrained by case law on Second Amendment grounds. I can't think of any examples. Can you point me to a post where someone has made such a claim?
As for it being a fact, which you distinguished from case law: Justice Clarence Thomas has some things to say about that:
THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A GUARD FOR OUR FUTURE SECURITY by Andrew M. Wayment
In his concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, Justice Thomas acknowledged this fact: "Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the 'right to keep and bear arms' is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right."[160]
Furthermore, Justice Thomas speculated that "[i]f . . . the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections."[161]
Towards the end of his opinion, Justice Thomas made an interesting prediction: "[P]erhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to keep and bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."' [end of excerpt]
-- THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A GUARD FOR OUR FUTURE SECURITY
IMO, you should listen to what Justice Clarence Thomas says.