[DoodleDawg]

This isn’t something the states retained for themselves. The 2nd Amendment’s “Shall not be infringed” is quite clear.

Sure it is. If a state decides they don't want people carrying firearms in courthouses or jails or schools or sporting events then they have the power to prohibit it under the 10th Amendment. If they want to ban felons from owning firearms then they have the power to do so under the 10th Amendment. If they want to become Constitutional carry or if they want to require training to get a concealed carry permit then they have the power to do so under the 10th Amendment. The Heller decision said that states cannot prohibit a citizen from keeping a firearm in their own home. But the same decision said that reasonable restrictions are within the state's power to enact. Under the 10th Amendment.

[FLT-bird]

It’s going to depend on interpretations of “reasonable”. I do think an argument can be made for the “bear” part of keep and bear arms. Some states are so restrictive they make it illegal to even have in the car for anything other than going to the range or the gunsmith.

I am more concerned with patently unreasonable conditions like California sets which require any new handgun to be able to stamp the bullet with ID even though the technology doesn’t exist. Furthermore if the design of an older model is changed at all then they claim it is a “new” design and add it to the ban list.

The USSC’s reasoning in Miller was that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it was not “reasonably related to the need for a militia”. ie it was a nonmilitary-type weapon. OK. Fair enough. By that rationale, every single restriction on or ban on semiautomatic rifles or high capacity magazines should be struck down as unconstitutional.

[rollo tomasi]

You are forgetting about McDonald v. Chicago (Decided a year or so after Heller) which incorporated the 2nd Amend onto the States.

Not to mention Blackstone Commentaries (Natural Law etc...) and the earliest Constitutional commentators saying that States trying to infringe upon the "right to bear arms" was not consistent with the intent.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 'A View of the Constitution of the United States', Pennsylvania Assembly who voted to ratify the BOA and later was appointed US District Attorney for Pennsylvania by Washington.

This was the standard thinking until the convoluted reasoning of United States v. Cruikshank came along.

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry, BOR, instead of BOA. Spellcheck is a sinister beast at times.