No, not until the 14th amendment turned the Constitution on it's head.
The civil war lead to the 14th. The rebel States refused to abide by Article VI, necessitating the reiteration of the concept in the 14th.
The 6th amendment says that state law can't override the Constitution, but the 9th and 10th say that states rights prevail unless mentioned in the Constitution and cannot be overwritten by Congress.
You quote them just below. I'll comment there on your misconceptions.
Of course, the 14th amendment changed all that. Before then, states were free to establish a state church because the 1st amendment only applied to Congress.
Not true. Utah tried, and failed, to become a 'religious' State well before the civil war.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
____________________________________
Article VI restricts the powers of the States, prohibiting State officials from ignoring our "supreme Law of the Land", --- "any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Read it and weep for your inability to understand. - 'States rights' cannot infringe on individual rights.
Since property owners had always been allowed to decide who could be on their property, and employers had always been allowed to decide who their employees were, that right was retained when the Constitution was written.
So you imagine. Our RKBA's is not to be infringed, by anyone..
Why do you refer to the provisions of our BOR's as "sanctions"?
Because they prohibit government agencies from creating laws against weapons.
Yet you champion individuals who are creating 'rules' against weapons. Hypocrisy.
Why do you want citizens to be able to restrict & ignore the liberties of their peers?
I don't. I don't want another citizen to pass a law banning gun ownership. I don't want him to be able to fine me or put me in jail for having a gun. I don't want him to be able to confiscate my property if I am a gun owner. I don't want any law against gun owners or the right to carry arms. Employers should not be allowed to take away rights of citizens because they carry guns.
Yet you champion individuals who are creating 'rules' against weapons. Hypocrisy.
But, yes, the employer can fire an employee for having a gun because a job is not a "right", it is a agreement between two people. A contract. So if an employer says he won't employ gun owners he is not taking away a right, he is not passing a law, he is merely exercising his right.
He is violating our Constitutional contract, that says our RKBA's shall not be infringed, by anyone.
If your girlfriend says she's going to dump you unless you get rid of your guns, she is not violating the Constitution. If a farmer says a fisherman can come on his land as long as he doesn't bring guns, he is not violating the Constitution.
Parse it as you will, -- people like that are anti-constitutional. And you are supporting & defending them, not our Constitution.
You've bought into authoritarianism, not me.
I am against authoritarian governments. But people should have authority over who they can select as their friends, peers, their clients, their employees, or their customers for whatever reason they choose.
Within reason, of course we can associate freely. But why are you choosing to associate & defend gun grabbers?
But it isn't a infringement on a right for a private party to make a condition of access.
'States rights' cannot infringe on individual rights.
That's true. But we are talking about two individual rights. Property rights and the right to be armed. The only way to guarantee both rights is to allow both rights. You have a right to be armed. I have a right to keep you off my land.
But if have to answer in court as to the reason for keeping you off my land, then my property rights are gone. You could claim that someone tried to keep you off their land because you had a gun. And even if that weren't true, you could threaten them with a lawsuit. Better to give landowners sovereignty over their property.
Yet you champion individuals who are creating 'rules' against weapons. Hypocrisy
But it isn't a violation of your gun rights to not associate with a gun owner. It is the right of anyone to refuse to deal with you on any terms, not just gun ownership.
If a store owner says you have to wear a shirt in his store, he isn't restricting your right to go shirtless, he is controlling access to his store based on his terms.
But you want to insist that you have a right to come on to my property, armed, against my wishes then you are insisting that I have no property rights at all.
Don't you understand that if you allow that, private property is meaningless. All you would need to do is carry a gun and you could go anywhere you wanted whether the property owner wanted it or not.
Parse it as you will, -- people like that are anti-constitutional.
Perhaps, but don't you agree that they have that right of free association anyway? If we accept your interpretation, we would have the ludicrous situation where a woman could be sued for dumping her boyfriend because he owned guns.
And you are supporting & defending them, not our Constitution.
It seems that you want to support people you like and restrict people you don't like. I am supporting the Constitution.
Within reason, of course we can associate freely.
But the trouble with saying "within reason" is that it allows the legal system to determine what is reasonable in our free association. Why should the government be allowed to do that? And how can you possibly know what is in someone's mind when he rejects someone. Today we are swamped with lawsuits from people who claim they were discriminated against for a zillion different reasons. It has become an industry, "Pay me money and I will drop the suit".
But why are you choosing to associate & defend gun grabbers?
No, not gun-grabbers in general. People who don't want guns on their property. Or people who don't want to work and play with gun owners. That's different.
Why? Because I believe in property rights and the rights of individuals. One way our rights are being taken away is though erosion of private property rights. The legal climate has become so hostile that businesses, churches and private institutions are giving up their rights to the government in exchange for legal protection and protection from taxes. Allowing people to sue because they were "denied" some constitutional right would further this process.
As an example, employees often sue for bogus claims of "sexual harassment" leaving it up to a judge or jury to decide if it really occurred. Likewise, an employee could claim he was fired for owning a gun, even if that weren't really the case. The result is the private companies, which used to be a balance against government, are being subjugated to toe the statist line.
You see private businesses and property owners as a potential threat, I see them as a balance against the state. I would rather give property owners and employers more sovereignty over their domain. That way, they are not subject to this legal blackmail.