He did NOT argue that the states were free to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. You are inferring that. Likewise as to his desire about the condition of local law in Chicago.
The legal solution (which will not be forthcoming) is to properly read and apply the Presser case. There is a reason states may not prohibit keep and bear arms, but that reason is NOT the 2nd amendment. The RKBA does not flow to the people via the 2nd amendment, to be enforced or not at the pleasure of the feds. See scores of 2nd amendment cases (where the Circuits positively BLEW IT), cert. denied. SCOTUS is anti-RKBA.
The realpolitic solution hasn't been developed yet. I hope SCOTUS denies cert in the Nordyke/Maloney/Chicago cases, to further show their current hostility to the RKBA. That might cause some people to snap out of their stupor. If it doesn't, well, that's that.
Much better stated than I was able to do. Well said.
The US Constitution is superior to state law and always has been. The Bill of Rights is part of that. The states can not restrict the right to keep and bear arms because Article VI says that can’t.
Law of the land so to speak.
You have to read the whole Constitution, not just the parts you want to read.
Correct. The RKBA is one of the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and any honest and neutral court would realize that and enforce it against the states and local governments. Our problem isn't that there is no Constitutionally created RKBA, our problem is that our liberal courts refuse to acknowledge and protect a natural, unalienable right that the founders recognized as such.