The Supreme Court of the United States did decide in Heller that the 2nd Amendment is a private, not collective right. That ruling applies to all 50 (or 57) states.
Allowing states to more narrowly circumscribe federally guaranteed rights contradicts not only generally recognized notions of federalism (ex. we have standard heights for interstate overpasses and trailer rig sizes) but also the constitutional doctrine of `preemption’: where federal and state laws conflict, federal law preempts state law.
Again, the SCOTUS ruled in Heller that federal law is the 2nd Amendment is a private, not collective, right, as applied to the District of Columbia. There is no reason to dilute that right here by saying that a state can infringe on the right as interpreted by the highest court.
Moreover, states can give greater rights than federal law, but not less. The centralized government, power aggrandizers want to be able to use the above rationale to justify encroachments on individual liberty, but they can’t have it both ways, they can’t say federal law trumps state law only applies where it advances their agenda. (examples: just last November, Article 2, ``Requirements for the office of the presidency’—ignored; the 14th Amend. enabling/implementing the civil rights statutes following the war—enforced; the US Code regarding naturalization & immigration of aliens—ignored; etc.)
Of course that’s just stuff they teach in law schools, with the flip side being, as your post points out—try and explain it all to the subjects of the Peoples Republic of California; even if they vote, their courts may rule: `Nyet’.
In any event no government or court `gives’ us anything; if they are `wise latinas’ they simply recognize and respect God-given rights, i.e. the reason we have `Liberty’ on our coins. The natural law right of self-defense and defense of others trumps any artificial limiting constructs that governments (see: `Democrats’) would assert.
The NRA, God bless `em, is fighting the control freaks & gun grabbers as hard as ever. Let’s send them some more money.
Federal firearm law preempts state. See 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and the convictions thereunder. A state cannot assert that its citizens may possess post-1968 select-fire weapons. The Federal restriction rules.
There is an individual RKBA, and states may not prohibit it - but that outcome does not depend on the presence or enforcement of the 2nd amendment directly against the states.
I'm a life member. Not that gives me any more or less right to criticize the NRA, but I lay that out FWIW.
The NRA SUCKS at teaching the public about 2nd amendment law. It accepts Circuit precedent as correct, and argues following "conventional wisdom" that accepts the errors Circuit Courts have made in reading and applying Miller and Presser.
The Miller case stands for the proposition that the feds may not prohibit short barrel shotguns, if short barrel shotguns have a defensive use. So, 2008, Heller comes along and the NRA says "Miller stands for the proposition that the feds MAY prohibit the public from short barrel shotguns." They argue that this fabrication is necessary to get the LYING Court to throw the bone of allowing citizens to have a handgun at home, provided they jump through whatever licensing hoops the locals erect. "We Won!" Yeah, ROTFL, you sure did.
The NRA is as much guilty for walking back the power of the people as the 2nd and 7th Circuit. Even if they have to argue BS to the Courts, they could STILL educate the people about how big a liar the Courts are being in regard to the Presser and Miller cases. Not a peep - they say the Heller Court "got it perfectly right."
They aren't fooling me. I read the cases.