Originally Posted by
Little-Acorn
Kathianne, if the states could enact laws that curtail any constitutional rights, we'd still have slavery.
I'm not sure if you were making the statement bolded above, as an example of why states CANNOT curtail second amendment rights, or if you are actually saying you believe states CAN curtail them.
Since the 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, this means NO government can do it. When the Framers wanted to ban the Fed govt from doing something but permit the states to do it (as protected by the 10th amendment as you mentioned), they specifically named the Fed govt as being the govt they were banning. The 1st amendment is an example: It forbids CONGRESS, by name, from making laws about religion, but says nothing about banning state or local govts from making such laws. And as you pointed out, the 10th says that "the states or the people" can still make such laws in that case. The Framers phrased the 1st that way, because many states at the time had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to interfere with that.
OTOH, the 2nd amendment does NOT say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It simply says "For the following reasons, the RPKBA shall not be infringed." Since it doesn't single out an specific govt for the ban (as the 1st does), that means that NO govt can infringe... including "the states or the people".
Long after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 14th amendment modified parts of it, possibly including the 1st amendment's statement that only the Fed govt is forbidden to make laws concerning religion. The 14th may mean that now all govts in the US are forbidden to make such laws. But no such modification was needed for the 2nd - it already meant ALL governments, from the day it was ratified.