[robertpaulsen]

"On the "theory" level, IF a State's Constitution were written in a similar fashion as the US Constitution [i.e. a granting of specific limited powers to the State] AND said Constitution was silent on the question of the RKBA's - then the State has no power to restrict."

Good theory, but if the state really wanted to restrict guns it would find that power somewhere in their state constitution -- the power to "maintain order", or the power to "secure liberty" or some such stupid reason (look at the hoops the USSC jumped through to allow abortion -- a penumbra of an emanation, for crying out loud).

Without state constitutional protection of the RKBA, legislatures will find a way.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Re. Abortion.

I've said this before on other threads, the Court was right but for the wrong reason.

The Constitution does not contain a power granted to the Federal government to regulate such affairs and thus any regulation at Federal level is unconstitutional.

Indeed, even most crimes can not be Federal crimes because the government was not given the power to make them so.

IIRC, most state constitutions contain provisions for their governments to decide such affairs, and, as long as those provisions do not violate that states constitution, the federal government has no business in dictating what is right and proper.

Of course, the 14th Amendment has muddied that waters quite a bit.

On last point - so called constitutional "protections" have exactly the opposite effect. It is up to us, the people, to assert our rights and hold government(s) accountable to the constitution(s) they are sworn to uphold and defend. It is a daunting task, but we must fight every day to preserve the Republic our ancestors bequeathed to us.