“Next, the “bad news” for pro-gun rights people. The USSC decided in Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, a state land grab case claiming 5th A. protections, that unless explicitly stated, the federal Constitution’s general restraints on government power applied only to the federal government, not to the states. So the 2nd A.’s government restraint that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was arguably a restraint only on the federal government, not the states. The states had seemingly reserved the power to infringe on gun rights for themselves even if they forbade the federal government from doing so.”
Doesn’t every state Constitution accept the fed constitution as governing law so the 2nd A still works?
Clauses 2 and 3 of Article VI of the federal Constitution requires all state officials to uphold the federal Constitution. But in the same breath, I'll say don't overlook the Founder's division of federal and state government powers reflected in the federal Constitution.
Indeed, as evidenced by your reply, confusion about the scope of the federal Constitution has existed possibly from the day that it was ratified to the present. But you're in good company. Even the late 19th century USSC has shown, in Presser v. Illinois 1886 for example, that it was possibly not aware of John Bingham's words about the 14th Amendment which had officially changed the scope and clarified the purpose of the federal Constitution's privileges and immunities.
Bear in mind that the states ratified the original part of the federal Constitution on the condition that they would be able to make a bill of rights for it; several states had their own bills of rights. When the federal BoR was later being drafted, James Madison officially proposed that the states be required to respect at least some of the privileges and immunities that were being incorporated into the federal BoR. It turns out that Madison's proposal was ignored. The states evidently wanted to be benevolent dictators for the people.
For further clarification of the division of federal and state powers that the Founding States incorporated into the Constitution, a concept which has been largely forgotten these days, consider the following. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution aside, just because the 1st A. of the federal Constitution forbids the federal government from making laws pertaining to religion, speech, etc., doesn't mean that the states couldn't write laws to limit these basic freedoms. In fact, Jefferson noted that the states weren't bound by the 1st A.'s prohibition on certain powers of the federal government.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this state, by a law passed on the general demand of it’s citizens, had already protected them, from all human restraint or interference: ..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozooSo Chief Justice Marshall who wrote the majority opinion in Barron v. Baltimore 1833, was evidently aware that the limited scope of the federal Constitution's privileges and immunities was not an oversight, even if John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. was not. However, I agree with James Madison and John Bingham that the limited scope of federal privileges and immunities created an awkward situation.
Finally, let's compare the 2nd and 10th Amendments with Sec. 1 of the 15th Amendment, for example, to see how the Founders implemented their idea for determining the scope of government powers limited by the federal Constitution.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Although the 2nd A. acknowledges the states, it doesn't explicitly prohibit a certain power to the states as required by the 10th A. and exemplified by the 15th Amendment. The 15th A. explicitly prohibits both federal and state governments from abridging voting privileges based on race.10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
15th Amendment, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.