[Mojave]

Invalidating state laws that run afoul of the US Constitution

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

[DesertRhino]

“Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states”

yeah, that’d be like arguing that the 1st amendment restricted a states right to set up an offical church, or outlaw FR in that state.

[Hugin]

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

It was. Note the 1st says "Congress shall make no law", but the 2nd says "the right of the people shall not be infringed". It doesn't say just by Congress, but by anybody. That's because the Federal government needed to ensure that the people would be armed for the defense of the country. By ratifying it, the states agreed not to disarm the people.

[cbkaty]

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

One more reason for all State Constitutions to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms....

[VRWCmember]

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

Unlike some amendments within the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment does not contain the words "Congress" or any other language limiting its effectivity to the federal government. So while the courts have used the 14th amendment to incorporate other restrictions against the federal government onto the states, such incorporation of the 2nd amendment is not even necessary. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is ambiguous to you?

[epow]

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

If the 2nd only restricts the federal government from disarming state militias as the 7th's decision implies, then the Heller decision wouldn't have nullified the local D.C. government's handgun ban. The 7th circuit's decision is itself a violation of a right that was just upheld by the highest court in the land last year. As I said before, unbelievable!

[RobRoy]

>>Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states<<

Not pretending. The constitution (and bill of rights) does not proclaim what rights the government gives individuals. Rather, it proclaims what God-given rights cannot be taken away by the government. This means that if the federal government cannot take away a certain right, then NO government under that umbrella can.

Conversely, if the constitution does allow room for the federal government to take away a right (like the right to rob), then local and state governments have the same right, even if the federal government is silent on the issue.

This appeal is clearly appropriate and is a textbook case of why the judicial branch was created in the first place.