This is where we disagree. We can, and DID "give up" some inherit rights by granting the state / federal government the power to regulate those areas - anything we did not grant, we retained unto ourselves.
For example, "free" men would be able to engage in commerce with anyone / everyone they chose, regardless of whether such commerce were intrastate / interstate. However, we granted power to both the state and federal governments to regulate these areas.
The US Constitution SHOULD take precedent. Article VI makes that clear.
Valid point - but I'm arguing whether the government even has the power to regulate! For example - I see no power granted unto the federal government which would allow the government to regulate RKBA issues! (except of course the convuluted paths via abused clauses such as the commerce clause).
Some state constitutions may allow some degree of regulation, but, I would contend that the majority of them contain no language which grants the legislatures to regulate RKBA issues. (Someone will likely prove me wrong here :) )
I agree that article VI's "supreme law" assertion is compelling. Actually, it, like the BoR shouldn't even need to be stated!! But, I guess some things, however obvious, must be stated to prevent so wisea** lawyer type from misconstrueing the "intent"!! However, at the time that this clause was adopted, it applied only to the unamended constitution. THAT Constitution simply granted the fed's limited powers and prohibited to the states the exercise of certains powers (like coining money).
Well, theory is "fun", but the reality is, all levels of government have been exceeding / abusing the powers grnated for a VERY long time now - and the majority of "WE the People" seem to care less.
For me, it is an interesting exercise when looking at what the congress passes and the president signs - I truely believe that the majority of the founders would be quite displeased with the lot of them.
You and I are in almost complete agreement. Mostly certainly with your last two paragraphs.