Sorry, but the constitution does not give us any rights, it merely enumerates the rights we are born with. The second amendment is clear "...shall not be infringed" means just that. The state, city or whatever do NOT have the right to regulate the owning or carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens, to do so infringes on those rights which the constitution clearly says they can't do.
Anyone who believes the government, at any level, has the right to regulate firearms and keep citizens from carrying them doesn't know what they are talking about.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
This, like other procriptions of the Constitution lays out what the FEDERAL government cannot do. The whole concept was to limit what the federal government can do and to leave the details and bulk of the power to the states. The idea of the first clause of the second is that the states can form and regulate a militia; that it must be well regulated and is under state control. This is where we are running into trouble today.
What is not given to the federal government, in this case, is the statutory ability to keep citizens from owning firearms so the regulatory capacity, not the ability to prohibit ownership of weapons, goes to the states. The states can lay out rules and regulations as long as they do not prohibit or do away with the above stated right of the people to keep and bear those arms.
You might not know what you are talking about.