Yes it is. Note also, "With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, ... it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them ..."
It is up to the particular state to protect the citizen's RKBA, not the federal government. The particular state decides which rights, and to what extent those rights, will be protected.
"A reference was made to Dred Scott which had listed the rights of citizenship which African-americans would be entitled should they be considered citizens, including the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went"."
Yes, subject to the laws of each state. As with the freedom of speech.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
paulsen agrees, shooting himself in the foot once again:
Yes it is.
Retained rights are inalienable rights, -- same thing. --- Governments, as per the 10th, have no delegated powers to infringe on such rights. -- In fact officials are prohibited from doing so at every level, as is made clear by Article VI.
It is up to the particular state to protect the citizen's RKBA, not the federal government.
Thats a total fabrication paulsen. -- Both fed and state officials are bound by oath to support our 'Law of the Land". See Article VI.
The particular state decides which rights, and to what extent those rights, will be protected.
You've never been able to support that odd contention, and don't even try, --- because its straight out of the 'majority rule' democratic playbook.
Admit it paulsen, you're a democrat.
You and your pesky quotes.