[BroJoeK]

OneWingedShark: "No; your understanding is tainted with a Statist worldview*:... "

You have no clue what my "understanding" is, or is not, "tainted with", but immediately jump to your all-purpose knee-jerk accusation -- "Statist" -- apparently because it's useful whenever you have nothing of real value to contribute.

I simply asked a question, basically: in the entire history of the Republic, was the Federal Constitution ever used to strike down state and local ordinances restricting guns?
If not, how are you going to suddenly invent a new "constitutional right" that was never recognized before?

And what exactly is that right, in your mind?
Can any one (criminal? lunatic? non-citizen?) lawfully carry any weapon, any time, any where, with no restrictions?
Or might certain restrictions apply under certain circumstances, as defined by local authorities?

[OneWingedShark]

Or might certain restrictions apply under certain circumstances, as defined by local authorities?

Iis there any portion of human life where government authority should not touch? (Or is there nothing outside the state?)
I would submit that the right to defend one's life is one such item that should be outside the state [and "local authorities"].

Does "certain restrictions" include some agreement such as a gun-check, where the "local authority" assumes accountability/responsibility for your safety and property?

[OneWingedShark]

I simply asked a question, basically: in the entire history of the Republic, was the Federal Constitution ever used to strike down state and local ordinances restricting guns?
If not, how are you going to suddenly invent a new "constitutional right" that was never recognized before?

There are problems with this question:

1. The Constitution was considered as applying to the Federal government, only restricting the States where explicitly stated: like the prohibitions against States entering into treaties (this for the obvious reason that if one state allied with one country, and another with a different country, subsequently those countries waging war on one another could constrain/oblige those States to engage in war on one another).
2. The despicable Judaical power-usurpation referred to as "incorporation" changed the above -- instead of being a direct application of the Constitution's text to the states there is some magic that happens during incorporation: the result is that the text of the Constitution is construed to mean whatever the Courts say. (Ex: the first amendment specifically restrains 'congress' from certain actions, the 'incorporation' of the amendment is applied to legislatures.)
3. There is one thing that could be construed to apply the 2^nd's restrictions to the states: it is written in the passive-voice, meaning that the act of infringing is itself prohibited (regardless of actor). -- So whereas the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws twice (once to the states, and once to the federal government; both explicitly) the 2^nd is actually applicable to both [implicitly].
4. The Federal government has, especially in more recent years, ignored constraints placed upon itself... to include the 2^nd.
   A prime example of that is DC (and military-bases), completely under the FedGov has arms restrictions.
   (Military bases are a very interesting case: their constraints on weapons are from that post's commander -- as such, any order/policy preventing people from keeping and/or bearing arms is unlawful and illegal -- though you will hear many claim there is/should-be an exception... just like courts.)

Now, I'm not aware of the 2^nd Amendment being used to strike down local laws in earlier years. That could be (1) due to the view in #1, or (2) because the [Supreme] Court did not think of #3, or (3) that the issue was simply unraised in prior times*, or (4) because such restrictions were illegitimate due to local (read State) Constitutions [or traditions].

* -- as in a previous posts, open-carry was once extraordinarily common, and even young boys carrying rifles around did not spark the reactions they do today. For more/better information, ask some of the older Freepers (I'm only 30) and they'll tell you. (Especially interesting are stories about carrying even to [public] schools, as compared to today's 'no tolerance' policies.)