I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. No kidding, Heller would not have been a big case if applying the 2A to individual citizens wasn't a novelty. It's a novelty created originally by the Left, and they're furious about that. The Left, by applying the 1A and so on to individuals while bypassing state laws, opened the door to Heller with the Everson case in 1947. The immediate fruit of Everson was all kinds of stupidity, ranging from obscenity rulings and Roe to Miranda—all illegally denying state sovereignty. Then Heller argued for applying the 2A directly to individuals. Of course I like that result. But it was a case of making sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. In Heller, the good guys argued, "If you want to tromp all over state sovereignty on speech in various novel ways through 1A claims, you have to do the same thing for gun rights, and give the unvarnished Second Amendment directly to individuals from the Federal level."
It's not Federalism, but what can you do? Federal "gun control" is unconstitutional, too, but we'll have to work on that through testosterone in Congress.
The point is that if we claw our way back to Federalism, we'll have sane, competing state governments, and we won't need Heller—which was a case of using bad Constitutional law to give the people back their rightful liberties through a back door. But to get America back, we have to whack the Federal government to 1/1000th its current size, and let the states take back their sovereignty. It's the only way all parties will act responsibly. We'll wind up with sane gun laws—i.e., the only gun laws will be laws against armed robbery.
So then your interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that it can be trumped by State law or City Ordinances.
Fair enough, that is what is great about the USA you are allowed to a view that is totally inept and ignorant.
However you are on the wrong forum. You should check out DU or MSNBC.com. Their Views line up perfectly with yours they believe you can reinterpret the Founding Documents to suit your desired outcome.
However Conservatives know that the Bill of Rights are their to protect the rights of the people by limiting the power of Government to tell us what to say or tell us who to pray to or tell us whether we can own guns, etc.
Do you seriously think the Founding Fathers went to all that trouble passing the first ten Amendments through Congress and then getting them passed by the State Governments just so 9 town councilmen could invalidate them with the stroke of a pen?
Sorry Sparky, but you have been indoctrinated in Liberal/Progressive ideology. You need to see to that.