Amendment X - "States Rights" have been null and void since the civil war and the passage of Amendment XIV in 1866.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
There is nothing in the 14th that nullifies/voids the 10th. -- It merely makes clear that states cannot violate our individual rights as outlined in the rest of the constitution.
States have never had the delegated power to infringe upon our enumerated/ unenumerated rights, -- as is made clear by the preamble to the BOR's, -- which states that "when ratified", - it is, - " to be valid for all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution".
Article VI states that our Constitution: "-- shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound therby; --"
Your ideas about "states rights" are being used by states like CA to violate our 2nd amendment, by prohibiting so-called 'assault weapons'.
You will hear the Supremacy Clause / Bill of Rights argument over and over, but mere repetition, even from valued sources, does not make it the correct reading. I recommend that everyone interested in genuine understanding of the U.S. Constitution do the work, read the history, and judge this question for themselves.
Here's an alternate interpretation. Inalienable rights should never be abridged by any government, county, state, or federal. Any governing entity which we can hold worthy should limit itself. Any Constitution should reiterate that inalienable rights will not be abridged. Secondly, denying the people a right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) clearly leaves a way open for governmental oppression. Therefore we cannot approve of any constitution which does not clearly establish it.
California's constitution being such a one is a gross violation and deserves our condemnation.
Now, as to whether Amendments 1-8 of the U.S. Constitution apply through the states. SCOTUS has taken a cafeteria style approach, treating enumerated rights individually, as to whether or not Amendment 14 incorporates the given right. Some say complete incorporation would be much more logical. This would mean that the Supreme Court precedents establish exactly the same protections against state encroachment as they do national encroachment, except where a state establishes even greater protection.
My position is that centralization of rights adjudication in the Supreme Court is very bad, regardless of whether incorporation is complete or partial. I would prefer the country to be finally responsible for protecting its inhabitants from encroachments of national power, and states be responsible to protect their own inhabitants from encroachments of state power. When they fail to, the people must hold them directly accountable, not in every case run to federal "daddy" (except in specific situations described in Amendment 14).