[R.W.Ratikal]

No way. How can the fed/gov limit the rights of the states when the central government was created by the states. States rights came first before the central government was formed by the states at a Constitutional Convention etc. . . .

It is the federal government that has limited powers. Fed/gov has only those powers specifically granted to it by the states, all other powers remain with the people and the states.

This is basic Constitution 101.

[Dead Corpse]

Limited power yes, but "supreme" within those bounds. As stated quite clearly in the Constitution itself. Nor can merely State Law over-ride an enumerated Federal power or protection for a Right. Any powers not specificaly given to the FedGov, devolve to the State or the people of those States.

To whit, our favorite whipping boy, gun control. Any and all gun bans are illegal. The "F" portion of the BATFE is entirely ILLEGAL. As are the California bans, NY bans, ect... While it could be argued that the Militia Clause could be used to "regulate" the wearing of arms, this cannot be used to contrue a denial of RKBA completely. As in Texas. You cannot carry pistols openly and CCW is strictly "regulated". This puts Texas at odds with the "shall not be infringed" and well outside any reasonable "regulation" of the militia. The "militia", you and I, were never to be "debarred the use of arms".

Best bet would be to get rid of all Federal gun laws and revamp all State laws on the Alaska model.

[H.Akston]

"This is basic Constitution 101"

It's also Federalist 39, one of the best and most instructive about what this country is.