Whoa! Hold it right there. Pure legislation alone cannot over-side an Amendment written into the Constitution without following proper proceedure. The Amendment proccess is clear to understand. Until the Second is modified, it mean what it says and no "simple majority" can over-ride it. As "supreme Law of the Land", States cannot pick and choose which portions of it they can ignore.
While your point may have the backing of current law-makers and judicial activists, aren't they the same ones most of us on FR bitch about constantly? Why support them on this issue? Why degrade someone who tried to do something about it? Because of a few small bumps in competitive idealogy? A petty reason to destroy the fundamental structure of our Republic.
What you are describing is a pure Democracy. Abhorent!
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 1833
Read a book.
They can, do, and have followed the "proper" procedures for doing so.
Be that as it may, the Second Amendment refers specifically to what Congress may or may not do w/respect to the RKBA. The 2nd says nothing about what the states, counties, or cities may do with regard to firearms -- which makes it prime 10th Amendment territory.
Stanley also cited the Colorado Constitution: Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
What he leaves out, however, is the "Home Rule" aspects of Article XX: Such charter [of the municipality] and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith.
The Home Rule article has in fact been used as precedent to uphold the in cases like these. (Somebody once posted a link to the relevant precedents, but I have since lost it.)