[DesertRhino]

Then you argue that 2nd amendment is a “collective right”. It cannot be otherwise, if you argue that a state can pass a law that has the exact opposite effect. This argument means a citizen has no enforceable 2nd amendment right except on federal property.

[Mojave]

Then you argue that 2nd amendment is a “collective right”.

Because I don't share your love of centralized power and rule from the bench?

[Cboldt]

-- Then you argue that 2nd amendment is a “collective right”. It cannot be otherwise, if you argue that a state can pass a law that has the exact opposite effect. This argument means a citizen has no enforceable 2nd amendment right except on federal property. --

"Collective v individual" and "applies to the states or not" are two separate arguments. I'll add a third, and it's one that this thread overlooks.

The third argument is that RKBA does not depend on the 2nd amendment. And this is the position that the US Supreme Court took, in Presser.

SCOTUS in Presser v. Illinois: "... the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ..."

2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki: "Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states."

What irks the snot out of me is that the NRA does not disagree with the 2nd and 7th Circuit read and application of Presser. The NRA is equally feckless on the read and application of Miller.