You don't know what you're talking about.
Go and actually read the Constitution.
The States are barely mentioned. At the time of ratification, the States already EACH had their own respective Bill of Rights, and they did not accept that the Federal Constitution would be applied to them--except in the places specifically noted, and to which they specifically assented by ratification.
Make a special note to read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. These are the Amendments Madison believed to be the most important parts of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment recognizes that no unspecified power belongs to the Federal Government, and that all unspecified power belongs to the States FIRST, and to the people SECOND.
If, after reading this:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You still cling to the silly idea that the Bill of Rights was intended to extend beyond a limitation of Federal Power, then please trouble yourself to read Amendment XI, the first one passed to repeal a Supreme Court decision which granted the People the power to sue a State:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
And if you still haven't disabused yourself of the ridiculous idea that the Bill of Rights was a limit to Federal power, consider this: at the time of ratification, several States had official STATE RELIGIONS, which the first Amendment forbids the Congress to establish. In fact, there were official State Churches in New England up until the time of the Civil War. The Bill of Rights could forbid Congress from having an official US Church, but it had NO POWER to keep a US State from doing so.
That restriction was not lifted until after the First Amendment was Incorporated by Amendment XIV; after the Civil War.
I have. I've also read some 80% of Elliot's, quite a number of the letters the Founders wrote back and forth, and even some of the Con-Law text books of the time.
Here's a couple of interesting quotes for you:
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Art 6 para 2
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 on the Second Amendment
Huh... sounds like maybe the BoR protected the Rights of Citizens from not only Federal infringement, but from State infringements where specified.
Using the First Amendments wiggle room of "Congress shall make no law" to assume that the Seconds "Shall not be infringed", without qualifier, doesn't protect an Individual Right from ANY infringement at any level kinda misses the point.
In fact, it kinda plays right into the anti-gunners hands. Yer' not a Brady Buncher are ya Fred? 'Cause you sure as hell argue like one.
And one would not expect the states to get much mention when the constitution is a blueprint for the general government- with limits necessary to keep it from becoming another tyrannical mess as others before it. These guys wanted to put a bridle on the horse team, not the dang driver.
the Tenth Amendment recognizes that no unspecified power belongs to the Federal Government, and that all unspecified power belongs to the States FIRST, and to the people SECOND.
Was the second ammendment not specific enough for you? Was it not SPECIFIC enough!! I suppose California is well within it's right then to deprive me of a 'right' to keep and bear arms according to this interpretation, as long as it's state constitution doesn't protect it (and it doesn't [see Feinstein, Schumer, collectivist, communitarian, feel-good, rub my nuts, corruption, etc.]).
The Fourth ammendment (which you say does not apply to the states) contains something like this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
So, Californians are not protected (again) from unreasonable searches and seizures per your interpretation, unless California has such a protection written into it's constitution. (At this juncture I'm tempted to ask 'Why would any state with half a brain sign on to a contract with a general government if they had it so good?'--"We're the last, freakin' word on everything, man!")
You still cling to the silly idea that the Bill of Rights was intended to extend beyond a limitation of Federal Power, then please trouble yourself to read Amendment XI, the first one passed to repeal a Supreme Court decision which granted the People the power to sue a State:
Big deal, it says as a Californian I can't sue Nevada through the federal courts. And neither can Nevadans- we're both screwed and must find another alternative. Again, big deal.(some battles between siblings the parents need not involve themselves with).
And if you still haven't disabused yourself of the ridiculous idea that the Bill of Rights was a limit to Federal power, consider this: at the time of ratification, several States had official STATE RELIGIONS, which the first Amendment forbids the Congress to establish.
As well it should, somebody had to get the religion monkey off everybody's back and if it came attached to Federal Highway Funds, they were quite prescient, weren't they?[Don't look now, but Global Warming is fast becoming a religion and the moment the Feds pass a 'remedy', well, there goes the 1st Ammendment. "Shut up and pay your cap and trade fee, beeyach." Can't wait to see the size of the plate they'll be passing around.]
I think this (1st A) is the biggest 'poke-in-the-eye' to the Feds to be found in the BOR.
American colonies needed a parent and they invented MommyDaddy US Government. But, there are some things you should never do to a child- and the Bill of Rights lists everyone of them. Some (you) say the states may do these things? Bad Mommy.