[robertpaulsen]

"Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Then how do you explain the opinion of Founding Father and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in the following 1833 case:

"These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."
-- BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243

[Dead Corpse]

Marshall was WRONG. Not hard to understand. He was only a Justice and exceeded his authority under Art 6 Para 2. If he would have stepped back, re-read the legislation used to enact the Amendments, it contained a clause apply thing as part of the Constitution making both the "privileges and immunities" and "Supreme law of the Land" clauses operative.

As George Mason said,

There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law.

He then set out to rectify this and is largely given credit for penning the Original BoR. Even better than Marshall, Mason himself knew what he was writing.

[budwiesest]

These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.

This should be overturned. The intent was to apply them to individuals, irrespective of their level of organization.

The first ammendment is the soap box from which no government may knock a citizen from-- where government 'wrongs' are aired.

The second ammendment is the cartridge box which no government (pick a level, any level) may deny citizens access less it clearly violates the pact that exists between citizens and their 'representative' government.