So you believe XIV incorporates I-X against the States?
“So you believe XIV incorporates I-X against the States?”
I believe that any state law that restricts or prohibits any constitutional right is the legitimate domain for federal action.
There is plenty of room for interpretation of specific laws on the use and or display of firearms within a jurisdiction, but I think the simple act of crossing a state line a with a firearm should not constitute in and of itself a felony and it is proper for federal law to weigh in.
There is ample precedent in all kinds of areas of federal law that underpin this and take supremacy over state law. There are plenty of areas where it is unreasonable. This would not be unreasonable because it is an enumerated constitutional right, as such states do not have the right to limit the right to bear arms of a free man crossing a state line, in my opinion.
Why should a state be able to, for instance, prevent Catholics from traveling across a state line? That is a logical extension of what I think your argument appears to be.
I can’t believe you would argue this, so please explain why one constitutional right is able to be limited by state law, and another is not.