[mrsmith]

States have always been able to restrict ownership of various firearms.
Every state you ever lived in.

The Second protects that power from the feds.

Incorporating the 2nd under the 14th will require that a minimum federal standard of 2nd amendment right be sestablished and enforced upon the states (they will be able to exceed that minimum- but not fall below it).

If that is done faithfully to the Constitution it will be like Keyes envisions here. Advanced weapons will be more restricted, but available.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Ummm... States cannot restrict firearms ownership if their state constitution forbids it - you must have missed that point.

Here is the section in the constitution of my birth state:

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.]. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Many states have one just like it, or similar.

Nice try, though.

[tpaine]

'States rights' bumpkin.

[tpaine]

States have always been able to restrict ownership of various firearms. Every state you ever lived in.

You have never established a Constitutional basis for that opinion.

The Second protects that power from the feds.

The 2nd is part of our supreme Law of the Land that State officals are bound by oath to obey.

Incorporating the 2nd under the 14th will require that a minimum federal standard of 2nd amendment right be sestablished and enforced upon the states (they will be able to exceed that minimum- but not fall below it).

More unfounded, unestablished speculation.

If that is done faithfully to the Constitution it will be like Keyes envisions here. Advanced weapons will be more restricted, but available.

Keyes envisions restrictive regulations? How does he justify such regulations, - using the simple words of the 2nd?
Please explain Mrsmith.