You can cut and paste to your heart’s content if it makes you feel better.
But my conclusion is that Heller and MacDonald gave Cruikshank a smack upside the head; and I am not alone in that. As a result, the Second Amendment is what it says it is in the Constitution, that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The pertinent clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in this regard is “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Cruikshank held that only the states or local government could create the right to keep and bear arms; and if it did, the US Constitution protected that. Heller held that the right of the People to keep and bear arms was not dependent on service in a state militia (which is created by the state), but was an individual right (again, not restricted to service in a state militia). MacDonald held that the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states.
That’s how I read them. You can read them differently, and you likely do, and draw your own conclusions.
I have not yet seen the decision in New York’s Koch and Nash case, so I have no idea of the specifics, and thus cannot draw a conclusion.
You can cut and paste to your heart’s content if it makes you feel better.
That's nice. You can continue to post ignorant nonsense it it makes you feel better.
Cruikshank held that only the states or local government could create the right to keep and bear arms; and if it did, the US Constitution protected that.
You're delusional, which is why you can't cut and paste that.
United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875)
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.