Well I think most people reading this thread assume that this has already happened. Why would it matter if the state, can already deny your RKBA?
Sad thing is when I was born this whole discussion would have been deemed insane.
Most states can't - their constitutions forbid it. Illinois state constitution does, for example. The fix isn't to go crying to pappa Fed when your state abrogates its contract with its people.
Said another way, there is more than on RKBA, but people don't take care to distinguish them in conversation because they all go by the same name. "Inherent RKBA," "RKBA noticed in a state constitution," and "RKBA noticed in the Fed constitution." So, if somebody says "RKBA in the fed constitution doesn't apply against the states," that doesn't make all three types of RKBA evaporate.
Even if a state constitution lacks an RKBA provision, the state can't deny your RKBA, even if the Fed RKBA (2nd amendment) is set aside. SCOTUS said so in Presser - if a state prohibits RKBA, it steps on the feds power to form a fed armed force.
-- Sad thing is when I was born this whole discussion would have been deemed insane. --
The quality of that generation is history. The USA is dead and gone, but for finishing the crying in our beer.