"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
-- US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
This ruling has stood for 132 years and it stands today. When it comes to the RKBA, state laws are limited only by their state constitutions.
Now, if telling you this makes me a non-conservative, so be it. But you need to know who protects your individual gun rights -- and it ain't the second amendment. If it did, we'd have concealed carry in every state, wouldn't we?
I am not going to just sit around, complacent, thinking that my individual RKBA is protected from state infringement by the second amendment when it isn't -- sounds like something Sarah Brady would want me to believe.
Beware of the sub rosa gun control supporters on this forum who want you to believe your rights are protected when they're not. They're after your guns, either intentionally or through their own willful ignorance.
The problem is that a state constitution's guarantee of the RKBA doesn't protect us from federal gun laws. That's why we need a USSC decision on a 2nd Amendment case that would both rule the 2nd protects and individual right and not a collective right, and would also incorporate the 2nd Amendment into the 14th as most of the other BOR amendments have been. Once the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th it would, in theory at least, protect the RKBA from both federal, state, and local infringement. But only IF the court also decides that it protects an individual right and not just a corporate right.
It would be great if the current court would use the pending appeal of a lower court's overturning of the D.C. gun ban to do all that, but with only 4 reasonably dependable votes on the high court that's very unlikely IMHO. Since the D.C. is not a state and is ultimately governed by Congress, the 2nd applies there anyway without incorporation. But that hasn't stopped the D.C. liberals from enacting the harshest gun laws this side of the UK because of the corporate right interpretation that has prevailed for over a century. That shows that even incorporating the 2nd wouldn't break the lib's gun-grabbing habit unless the court also rules that it protects an individual right.
You ought to quote the more important part of that discussion - where the Cruikshank Court states that the right to bear arms is not dependant upon the Constitution for it’s existence.
That is “fundamental, individual right” language - and it is also still good law today.
Oh, and you ought to post a disclaimer that you are a collective rights guy, instead of the misleading stuff you post regarding the second amendment.