Every state - EVERY state? I don't think so. In any case, when I think "death knell" I'm not thinking so much about whether the legislatures of Texas or Wyoming or Alaska or similar-minded states are going to ban all guns, including bolt-action .22s - because I know that they wouldn't do so even if their state constitutions permitted it...the legislators would be constantly wondering if they'd see the light of the next day. No, I'm thinking of the principle expressed in Parker that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. If that part of the ruling is incorporated into a USSC ruling, then there is a strong basis to overturn such things as:
1) Any ban on semi-auto rifles;
2) Any ban on firearms that fire the .50 BMG cartridge (semi-auto or bolt);
3) Any ban on handguns in any jurisdiction (Chicago, Morton Grove, etc.);
4) Bans on full auto ownership by states; and
5) (Here's the biggie, from my perspective): An overturning of Title 18, Section 922(o). Kill 922(o), and you'll have 1 million full autos in civilian hands within a couple of years, rather than approximately 200,000 now (and the other 800,000 will be newer and more reliable, plus replacement parts will be readily available for the old ones). Oh, and it'll cost you considerably less than $15,000 for a full auto M-16 - more like $2,000, possibly less.
Have 1 million full autos in civilian hands without "blood running in the streets," and you'll kill gun control because that's THEIR worst nightmare (the firepower in civilian hands, NOT the bloodbath they always fearmonger about), and they won't be able to sell their crap to the middle of the road people. Wait till everyone knows someone, or knows someone who knows someone, with a full auto and then gun control as we all know it is DEAD.
An individual right over a collective right, well, that's one thing. But how in the world does that translate to the type of weapon protected?
I suppose some could make the case that those weapons should NOT be allowed under an individual right! I mean, under a collective "Militia" right, those are the types of weapons a Militia would use -- they should be protected. Under an individual right for self-protection and hunting, a Sarah Brady type can argue, we doesn't "need" to have a BMG or machine gun.
Yes, every state. Most protect the right via the state constitution. The rest by statute.
I can't think of one state where an individual's right to keep and bear arms is not protected. Can you?