Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, but did not mean that only Congress was so restricted.
The 10th made clear that States were also prohibited powers, among them the power to infringe on peoples RKBA's.
Yes, this is true. That's because the 2nd amendment doesn't mention the States or Congress. It simply guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
But the 1st does specify Congress.
Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, but did not mean that only Congress was so restricted.
The founders spent days arguing and carefully choosing the words that went into the Constitution. Do you really think they would have been so sloppy as to have written "Congress" when they meant "Congress and the States"
They had already written down that concept -- [ALL officials, 'Fed & State' are pledged to support the US Constitution] -- in Art VI.
After the civil war, southern States were denying freed slaves the RKBA's, under the pretense that the BOR's did not apply. The 14th was ratified to end that controversy.
The tenth amendment reserves rights not given to Congress and not prohibited to the states, to the people or the states.
I'm curious. Is this something that they are teaching in schools these days? -- that the original Constitutional restrictions on Congress also applied to the states?
I'm curious why you think it shouldn't be, as they always have. We fought a civil war to settle the issue, as a matter of fact.
A war does not change the meaning of what the founders originally intended.
Obviously, they intended that our Constitution would be the supreme Law of the Land, obeyed by all Officials, Fed & State alike. See Art VI.
The Civil War was fought over the right of succession. In fact, the right of secession was assumed to be a given when the Constitution was ratified even though some states declared that they reserved the right to succeed when they ratified. A war may subjugate people, but it doesn't change the truth.
And the truth is that various "States Rights" [among them 'secession'] were the cause of the war.
That was a lost cause, as States do not have, and never had, -- the power to infringe on individual rights to life liberty, or property.
But there is no basis for that. Requiring that state officials swear to obey the Constitution does not change the wording of the 1st amendment from "Congress" to "States and Congress". It means state officials are sworn to abide by whatever restrictions the Constitution placed on them.
When you make a contract with another person, it can place obligations on one party that aren't required of the other. And when both parties sign the contract or swear to it, it doesn't somehow oblige the first party to comply with the obligations of the second.