Your reasoning or case law? I'm not going argue reasoning and then have you switch to arguing case law, which we already know.
To begin with, the RKBA is not an unalienable right. Second, even the 5th Circuit in Emerson said that reasonable regulations may exist.
So you were arguing case law? We know what case law says.
Third, the Founding Fathers voted against applying the BOR to the states when drafting that document, leaving the protection of those rights up to the individual states.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Second Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law..." It says "shall not be infringed". The words "by the Federal government" do not appear in any copy I've read.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause should provide an immunity from State infringement. And I'm not talking case law here, but reasoning based on the text of your favorite Amendment.
What if you lived in a state where the vast majority of the citizens did not want guns, and there was nothing in their state constitution protecting the RKBA. Over a period of many years, the state first banned machine guns, then rifles, then shotguns, and finally all guns.
Do you then have the right, nay the duty, to gather up all your friends and like minded citizens and overthrow the state government?
There are options short of violent rebellion. Use the political process to change the laws. Civil disobedience by keeping a firearm in your home-- would you turn in your firearm if the State said you must? Refusing to convict citizens on arms violations. Getting more Justices like Clarence Thomas.
Remember, the Colonists put up with numerous usurpations and violations over the course of many years and tried many peaceful options before they acted.
So, no, I don't think the citizens of Illinois should start shooting the Sarah Bradys, the Million Moms, and like minded individuals (you can relax), but they should at least make the case that a constitutional right is being violated and refuse to obey such laws.
Tough. You asked for it.
My arguments are based on case law. I cite the facts and quotes contained therin. Then you come along and ask, "But what is robertpaulsen's opinion?". I give you my personal opinion, then you get confused.
From now on, I'll just stick to the way things are. If I happen to include an opinion, it should be obvious.
"The Privileges and Immunities Clause should provide an immunity from State infringement."
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV? I don't think so.
And since my statement dealt with the FF and the original BOR, you're certainly not referring to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment ratified 80 years later, are you?
"The Second Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law..." It says "shall not be infringed". The words "by the Federal government" do not appear in any copy I've read."
By that you're saying that the first amendment does not apply to the states? Funny, I've yet to see you argue that the states may infringe on free speech.