The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government from day one, and that's how the Bill of Rights were enforced for 150 years.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. It is a limiting-powers document, meaning that it lays out the limited powers granted to the federal government by the states and the people. The ninth and tenth amendments make it clear that the rights specifically laid out are not the total list of rights (too many to enumerate), and anything not mentioned specifically is reserved to the states, and to the people. That means that the States and the People own all rights, and the federal government only has the powers that the states and the people delegate to it. We can debate the power grabs that have occurred by the federal government some other time.
The Bill of Rights came about because the states were leary of ratifying the Constitution as it was, since it went into detail about the federal government, but said nothing at all about what was reserved to the states and the people. Therefore, the Bill of Rights was meant to be a counter to the powers of the federal government by attempting to list what rights were positively not ceded to it (retained by the states and the people).
So, your comment about the Bill of Rights applying only to the federal government is completely opposite to what the Bill of Rights actually is. It is a statement of what rights were to be kept by the people. It was only after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution that the states were willing to ratify it.
-PJ
The Supremacy Clause says the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. It does not say that everything in the U.S. Constitution applies to the states. That would be silly, given that parts of the constitution apply to the states and parts to the federal government.
Let's read it again. I believe that that clause itself speaks directly to, and refutes, your contention.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
So, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and IMHO, it can be read no other way. But the Constitution is not the total law. Anything NOT in the Constitution is left to the states or the people. Having said that, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment is in the US Constitution, therefore, as it says, it is the supreme law of the land.
Clearly stated, the Supremacy Clause states as regards the 2nd amendment, that the 2nd amendment is the supreme law of the land, any laws or constitutions of any state that say anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
From my perspective, that plain definition/understanding is obvious, IMHO, to anyone who reads it. As obvious as the meanig of the 2nd amendment is itself to anyone who reads it as the judges recognized.
Unfortunately, in our day, common sense and clear reading are not a given anymore, and for a multiitude of reasons, from ideology, to pure power, to ignorance, to misinterpretation, to an out and out intent to water down and destroy the constitutiojnmal integrity of our Republic, unconstitutinal laws, acts, and edicts are passed all the time in our society under the color of law, when their constituional veracity is not worth the paper they are written on.
Was there a Federal militia? No. The individual States had militias therefore the 2nd is bound to the states also.