The reversal of gun prohibitions among the individual states is a good sign.. and an indication that many individuals have come to the conclusion that gun control is "just wrong"..
While I tend to agree with the argument that the 2nd is "all encompassing", according to it's literal interpretation, I understand there may be historical context that might possibly interpreted to limit it's context to one group or another.
The problem is, it is not limited to either one..
While some argue that "state's rights" provide immunity from the prohibition to infringe on RKBA, there seems to be no enforcement of that prohibition on the federal government as well..
Just my personal opinion, I'm no historical scholar, just a "voluntary student", so to speak..
States no more have "rights" than does the Federal Gov..
They both have "powers", granted to them by the people..
And the people can take those powers away just as quickly as they grant them..
Actually there is, the combined efforts of the people through the states.
That is the problem that the homosexual are having, they are being rejected in almost every state.
Hence, they have to find activist judges to bypass the rejection of their agenda on the state level.
Moreover, the rejection of that agenda on the state level translates into the Federal gov't hesitating to push it.
Gun control laws have become so 'hot'now that neither Party will touch them.
Kerry has to go hunting to show he is not a gun grabber.
This is due to the combined power of the people through the states.
We can also put in pro-gunners who will aggressivly attack federal gun laws and get rid of them as we did recently.
Just my personal opinion, I'm no historical scholar, just a "voluntary student", so to speak.. States no more have "rights" than does the Federal Gov.. They both have "powers", granted to them by the people.. And the people can take those powers away just as quickly as they grant them..
Exactly right, there is no thing as 'states rights' only state powers and responsibilities.
All gov't is dangerous and must be held in check by the people, at all levels.
The federal government has never been challenged on second amendment grounds -- hence, no enforcement.
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, for example, was challenged in federal court in 1995 by Navegar Inc. (TEC-DC9 and TEC-22) and Penn Arms Inc. (Strike 12) as a violation of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, not as a violation of the second amendment.