Okay, I finally see what you have been trying to argue.
Correct if wrong: You contend that no government can ban anything outright, because that is a violation of the 14th A. guarantee to property. That is, it is pre-emptive to your possession. Correct?
You're getting close. --- The power to prohibit is not delegated to any level of government in the USA. The 14th reiterated that fact to the rebel States in 1868. -- Although the 14th is still ignored today by States like CA & it's ban on 'assault weapons'.
But, after you possess that same item, the government may then, under a "reasonable regulation", such as a ban on the use, sale, transport or transfer of said dangerous item, arrest and prosecute you with all due process applied if you actually do anything with your property. Is that your contention, or am I still not following you?
Do you agree that CA has the Constitutional power to outright prohibit assault weapons, or booze, or drugs? -- I think 'laws' of that sort are unreasonable regulations, - thus unconstitutional, and unenforceable.
Why do you want States to have such powers?
Why do you want States to have such powers?
It is not that I particularly want the States to have that power, but that I believe the 10th A. reserves that power to the States, or to the people of that State. I believe that assault weapons are a particularly special case, as the RKBA is specifically protected under the 2nd A., and so per the 10th A., the banning of them is a power specifically prohibited to the States.
That you or I believe such laws to be unreasonable doesn't matter, unless you are a member of a large enough percentage of the population that you can vote them down or pass a State Constitution provision banning that power. The 14th may provide an approach to challenge them on a Constitutional basis, but I don't see that as a strong enough argument to overcome the States powers (often mischaracterized as "State's Rights") described in the 10th.
The power to prohibit is not delegated to any level of government in the USA.
But it is. Because it isn't specifically reserved to the Fed, nor specifically denied to the States in the Constitution, it is reserved by the States or the People. The 14th isn't specific enough to cover this, any more than it covers regulatory power. In places like CA, the people have ceded prohibitionary power to the Government, by approving laws and electing representatives that use this power.