It does indeed cause such an infringement, if it results in giving federal judges the power to second-guess state laws, in any area where the Constitution does not specifically restrict state action. Giving them that power has already contributed greatly to the virtual emasculation of state government's ability to act as an important check on the power of the federal government.
And it's a very well-established principle of construction that where the Constitution speaks in general terms, it only applies to the general government, because it's a Constitution of the United States, it's purpose being to create and delimit federal powers. It's only when it indicates the states by word (as in "No State shall...") that its strictures apply to the states.
I can’t agree with your well-established principle (somebody needs to un-establish it).
Why call ourselves the United States of America if we haven’t, under our Constitution, agreed to accept those enumerated ‘natural rights’ as uniform, inalienable precepts by which we partially define our existence …. and whose sanctity we protect from any (federal, state, local) government interference?
I agree with you that ‘general [Constitutional] terms’ which limit government power do not apply to the states, but rather only to the federal government. Strictly defining, and reining in possible abuses of, federal government power were perhaps the Framers’ most overwhelming concerns.
But, when considering the constitutionality of state laws which infringe upon the American citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, we are not talking about ‘general Constitutional terms’ as regards the limits of government. We are talking about ‘general Constitutional terms’ as regards the citizens’ ‘natural rights’. They are two entirely different considerations. One enumerates strict parameters within which the general (federal) government may operate. The other enumerates individual rights over which no form of government may trespass. Different color horses we’re talking about here.
I abhor (the all-too-frequent) federal court decisions which chip away at states’ rights. But any federal court which declares a state law prohibiting or restricting its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms is simply performing its Constitutional duty (to uphold). That (Constitutionally purist) kind of ruling is an all-to-infrequent occurrence today, which makes me even more resolved to defend it.