"After declaring that state and national citizenship co-exist in the same person, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. As a matter of words, this leaves a state free to abridge, within the limits of the due process clause, the privileges and immunities flowing from state citizenship. This reading of the Federal Constitution has heretofore found favor with the majority of this Court as a natural and logical interpretation. It accords with the constitutional doctrine of federalism by leaving to the states the responsibility of dealing with the privileges and immunities of their citizens except those inherent in national citizenship. It is the construction placed upon the amendment by justices whose own experience had given them contemporaneous knowledge of the purposes that led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. This construction has become embedded in our federal system as a functioning element in preserving the balance between national and state power." -- United States Supreme Court, ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
******************
I see what you're saying, Roscoe. I admire your scholarship, but I believe that I have just as strong a duty to interpret both the law and the Constitution as the Courts do.
My privilege as a citizen is to participate in my government. As a voter, I have a say in who will represent me. As a juror, I decide what the Constitution means, I decide what the laws mean, and I decide if a law is even fit to be enforced.
My authority as citizen is higher than the Court's authority as representatives of my government.
The right to keep and bear arms is an immunity which does not flow from state citizenship, it flows from federal citizenship.