You really need to take five minutes to read that decision. Seriously. This is getting flat-out ridiculous, and I'm getting tired of responding to it.
Time after time you misrepresent the case -- you either don't understand what the case was about or you do understand but think you can get away with lying about it.
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
"Citizen of a state". This has nothing to do with the second amendment. It has to do with the rights of citizens of a state.
If a white citizen had the right to carry arms in his state, then so would a "person of the negro race" who was recogized as a citizen of another state.
WOMEN citizens too? They weren't part of the militia.
And what happened to the observation that only two of the original states explicitly included use of arms for self-defense? Did the Supreme Court overlook the fact that "the right of the people to bear arms" was only intended to arm the state organized militia?
By what mechanism would a BLACK citizen become part of a WHITE militia? As you have often pointed out, BLACK "persons" don't have a protected right to bear arms in a militia.
It quite plainly addresses rights, giving as plain examples the exercise of first, second, and ninth amendment rights. OBVIOUSLY it has to do with, among other things, the 2ndA.
It also has to do with rights as a citizen of the USA. The rights, as given as examples, indicate no limitation to the state’s protection of rights. Contrary to your claim, the point of the quote is that one may enter _any_ state and exercise these rights. There is no indication whatsoever of the person exercising the rights “of his home state” or “of the state he is in”; the rights are simply presented independent of, and expected to be protected despite, protection (or lack thereof) of a given right in a given state. There is no state-limiting qualifier on those rights.
Learn to read.
To respond a bit differently:
The whole point of that quote is obviously that there are rights which a citizen may exercise REGARDLESS of which state he is in.