Cruikshank ignores Art 6 para 2 "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
So no... A State can't "infringe" on your RKBA either.
Of course, if you are running around committing violent crimes against others with them, the use of a weapon would have a bearing on your sentencing.
If a state couldn’t infringe on that right it’s because it’s a right, not because it was in the 2nd amendment. You seem to make a point with the “Congress shall make no law” point, but consider that elsewhere when it restricts state powers, as with ex post facto, etc., it does so explicitly. I do believe the feds were what could not infringe the right mention in amendment 2. If you wanted to restrict the states, you’d have to say so. Or rely on the state constitutions to do so.
Hi Dead Corpse. If I understand you correctly, beware of falling into the trap of accepting seemingly reasonable but PC interpretations of Supremacy Clause issues. (I've been there.) Only those federal actions based on specific powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution are supreme to state laws.
For example, consider the eminent domain state land grab case of Barron v. Baltimore. Mr. Barron thought that the 5th Amendment protected his private property from uncompensated land grabs by both the federal and state governments. But the Supreme Court clarified in Barron that "generic" prohibitions / limitations of government power in the Constitution apply only to federal government.
The question that the justice is referring to in the excerpt below is whether or not the eminent domain aspect of the 5th Amendment is a limitation on state powers. I've emphasized in the excerpt where the SC has clarified that "generic" prohibitions on governmen power in the Constitution apply only to the federal government, not to the state governments.
"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument (emphases added). They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States." --Barron v. Baltimore, 1833.
In fact, note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had referenced the Barron case as part of his inspiration for making that section. Starting in the 2nd paragraph of the 1st column in the page linked to below, this page from the post Civil War congressional record shows that Bingham had officially lamented that the Founding States had decided not to apply any general prohibitions of government power in the BoR to the states as the Court had clarified in Barron.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session
Note that Bingham had also officially clarified the 14A did not take away state powers.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1866. (last paragraph of first column)"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…" --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1871. (second paragraph of first column, depending on how you count paragraphs.)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (second paragraph from bottom in third column)
So given that the states had retained the 10A-clarified power to regulate arms under their 2A-clarified umbrella power of regulating militias under the BoR, then they certainly had these powers after 14A was ratified.