[Wildbill22]

It seems that many if not most state's constitutions go into much more detail as to the "individual" right to keep and bear arms. So with that in mind then how can the Federal Government be MORE restrictive if the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution is to express the STATE right to individual arms? It would seem any firearms laws passed by congress EVER would then be unconstitutional?

[robertpaulsen]

First of all, the second amendment (whatever it means) only applies to the federal government. In other words, the federal government (Congress) may not write laws which infringe on the second amendment. States are free to do so, provided they don't violate their state constitution.

As you said, most states protect an individual RKBA in their state constitution -- I believe six states have no RKBA protection, however.

Gun laws passed by Congress are done so under the power of the Commerce Clause, regulating (prohibiting) the interstate commerce of certain guns. I'm not aware that these laws have recently been challenged as violating the second amendment -- the last time was 70 years ago in US v Miller.

[therut]

Well Renquist said that very same thing one time. That the entire federal gun control scheme is unconstitutional. Of coase it was not said in a case but the did say that.