But I showed you at #30 how it was consistent with the original intent.
Not at all. At 30 you just elaborated on your circular argument that the States have powers to write law not directly restricted by particular provisions of the constitution, ignoring the BOR's as part of the constitution, on the basis that it was decreed so by the Barron opinion of the USSC.
At this point I'm going to have to ask you once again the question you've been reflecting back at me for the last few posts. Do you have any citations from the time period, or any other evidence beyond your own reading of the Bill of Rights, to suggest that the Founders intended for it to curtail state powers?
The entire Constitution [which includes the BOR's] curtails states powers in various different provisons.
-- The most important of which, and the one that proves my point best, is the 14th.
By 1868, it was obvious that the Barron 'ruling' was being abused by states to curtail individual rights, [noteaby the 2nd], thus its passage was an effort to restore original intent.
Some states are still ignoring the 2nd, as per CA, and it constantly amazes me that some 'conservatives' agree that states have such powers. -- What possible political advantage is gained by agreeing that states can ignore our individual rights?
Are you reading the same post I am? I did indeed argue "the States have powers to write law not directly restricted by particular provisions of the constitution" but it was most certainly not "on the basis that it was decreed so by the Barron opinion of the USSC." It was on the basis of the language contained in Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, on the basis of the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and on the basis of Madison's language when he was proposing an early draft of the Bill of Rights.
What possible political advantage is gained by agreeing that states can ignore our individual rights?
I wouldn't agree to that. I always insist that states should respect our rights. What I'm arguing against is the notion that the federal government has such legitimate powers over the states. Consider what happens, for example, when the high court makes rulings such as those which prohibit graduation speakers from issuing prayers, but allow them to give sermons about the need for more school funding, or about promoting "diversity" or other such drivel. Does this contribute to a greater appreciation for liberty? Does it cultivate an affection for small government or individual freedom? Most certainly not. What it does do is weaken people's resistance to federal authority. It does absolutely nothing else.
And if you want RKBA respected in California, it's not going to happen by petitioning the federal courts. They're not interested in gun rights. Your best bet is to put your efforts into fighting for it locally. Ultimately, the only way rights are going to be respected is if a certain critical mass of the population is educated about them.