Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution.
If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.
Wrong. The 'people' have no such authority to so delegate, -- under our republican form of Constitutional government.
As Justice Marshal noted in Marbury, 1803:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
It defies all common sense to write a Constitution for a United States, then claim that separate States can ignore its Amendments protecting individual rights.
It is constitutionally illegitimate for a state to infringe on our RKBA's.
...
It defies all common sense to write a Constitution for a United States, then claim that separate States can ignore its Amendments protecting individual rights. It is constitutionally illegitimate for a state to infringe on our RKBA's.
If I thought as you do, that the supremacy clause applies the BOR to the states, then I would agree. But I don't.