Article VI states that our Constitution: "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby; --"
Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.
The Article 6 supremacy clause does bind the judges of every state to the U.S. Constitution.
However, before Amendment 14, Amendments 1 through 8 were meant to restrict powers of the federal government, not the states.
You are ignoring the preambles words. The BOR's were meant to restrict the powers of all of our governments, local, state, territorial & federal..
You will hear the Supremacy Clause / Bill of Rights argument over and over, but mere repetition, even from valued sources, does not make it the correct reading.
Just as your repetition does not make your position the correct reading. -- The words of the documents speak for themselves.
I recommend that everyone interested in genuine understanding of the U.S. Constitution do the work, read the history, and judge this question for themselves. Here's an alternate interpretation. Inalienable rights should never be abridged by any government, county, state, or federal. Any governing entity which we can hold worthy should limit itself. Any Constitution should reiterate that inalienable rights will not be abridged. Secondly, denying the people a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) clearly leaves a way open for governmental oppression. Therefore we cannot approve of any constitution which does not clearly establish it. California's constitution being such a one is a gross violation and deserves our condemnation.
Our existing constitution condemns CA's violation. We need to see that it is enforced.
Now, as to whether Amendments 1-8 of the U.S. Constitution apply through the states. SCOTUS has taken a cafeteria style approach, treating enumerated rights individually, as to whether or not Amendment 14 incorporates the given right. Some say complete incorporation would be much more logical. This would mean that the Supreme Court precedents establish exactly the same protections against state encroachment as they do national encroachment, except where a state establishes even greater protection.
Some say that 'incorporation' is a legality, a sham that is un-needed. -- States have never had the power to violate our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. -- It is ludicrous to argue otherwise.
My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial. I would prefer the country to be finally responsible for protecting its inhabitants from encroachments of national power, and states be responsible to protect their own inhabitants from encroachments of state power. When they fail to, the people must hold them directly accountable, not in every case run to federal "daddy" (except in specific situations described in Amendment 14).
Why is it necessary, -in your mind-, to trust state/local government to honor our individual rights?
We have a constitutional system of checks & balances in place, -- that only needs to be enforced, as written, to accomplish that end.
I've already given a very logical and widely agreed upon disposition of what Article 6 means in this context. No need for me to repeat it.
Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.
They are not my ideas but the framers' ideas. I did not use the phrase "state's rights." CA cannot violate the 2nd amendment if it only restricts the federal government.
Our existing constitution condemns CA's violation.
I agree. In essence, it condemns it.
States have never had the power to violate our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
I agree. But that is not due to the Supremacy Clause OR the BOR, which each have their specific meanings.
Why is it necessary, -in your mind-, to trust state/local government to honor our individual rights?
It is not a matter of trust, but of responsibility. We cannot trust the states or the federal government: they serve at our pleasure.