The federal government reasonably regulates the interstate transportation of some guns that threaten public safety. These laws were examined by the courts under a "rational basis" review and found constitutional. I don't know who would think that a federal law banning all guns would be rational.
But this does bring up an interesting point. As recent as 1980 in Lewis v US, the U.S. Supreme court has used the "rational basis" review in gun cases saying:
"The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if there is "some `rational basis' for the statutory distinctions made ..."
What makes that interesting is that if the U.S. Supreme Court thought an individual right was being infringed they'd use the "strict scrutiny" standard rather than "rational basis".
"For those that do protect RKBA in their state constitutions, you've made it very clear that's a choice up to the majority (supermajority, whatever applies) of voting citizens in those states."
No. For those states that do NOT protect the RKBA in their state constitutions, I've made it very clear that's a choice up to the majority (supermajority, whatever applies) of voting citizens in those states.
Are you saying that the people of a state cannot do that? They can't make a decision how they want to run their lives? Well excuse me, but who are you to tell citizens of another state how to live? Seriously.
Now, if a state law violates the federal constitution, that's a different story. If a state totally disarmed its citizens, they would not be able to assemble an effective, well regulated Militia. Congress, therefore, would be unable to perform its constitutional duty to use the state Militia to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions."
"From what you have written (by the volumes), you advocate (with extreme prolific passion) an interpretation of RKBA and the 2nd Amendment whereby individual ownership of arms can, in all practicality, be outlawed"
You read it correctly, but misinterpreted what I said. I'm not advocating anything. If I say the sky is blue it doesn't mean I think it should be that color. It just is.
I have repeatedly pointed out the dangers of taking this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court at this time. I have demonstrated why I believe this through numerous cites of federal courts cases that the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at.
Because I do this, you and others have concluded I have some personal agenda. That's irrelevant. You have no logical and coherent arguments to make, so you start making assumptions about my personal motivations.
That's lame.
It’s fair to wonder why a prolific contributor to FR spends his thousands of posts advocating a view that most readers construe as anti-RKBA, and who insults those who attempt to understand his motivation.
Am I misguided in concluding that, in your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
- every state that does not explicitly protect RKBA in their constitution could, tomorrow, pass a law banning guns entirely?
- every state that does explicitly protect RKBA in their constitution could, tomorrow, pass a state-constitutional amendment repealing that protection, and the next day pass a law banning guns entirely?
- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law limiting militia membership to Irish-descended midgets?
- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law banning all firearms except muskets?
- the feds could, tomorrow, pass a law limiting possession and use of legal firearms (at this point, only muskets) to militia members (at this point, only Irish-descended midgets) when actually called out by the President?
From what most can tell, your passionately-promoted interpretation allows for the above. As the conclusion is so obviously anti-RKBA, pardon us if we construe your prolific writings on the subject as advocating a legal position whereby individual ownership of modern firearms can easily be abolished - to wit, anti-gun.