NO LEGITIMATE authority exists for gun control in the United States.NONE.

But, there were local gun control laws, however awful they may have been, in the early days of the republic, and they were never argued as being in the sphere of the federal government. When they need to be addressed, like just about everything else, they need to be addressed on a state or local level. Not with DC.

And, why do most states, if not all, have similar protections in their own constitutions? Redundancy is not something the founders considered acceptable.

But NO LEGITIMATE authority exists for 'gun control' in the United States.NONE.

The Supremacy Clause,that clause most abused by the federal government to assert authority over the Union,even when that authority is nothing less than a blaspheme of the Constitution,says very clearly that the Constitution is the Supreme Law and that while the states definitely do have more latitude in making a broader range of laws than the federal government -which is limited to just 16 duties- there is no excuse or permission in the Constitution ,given to the states, to trample the rights of the citizens.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

And while I agree that the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights 'given' to the people by the government,it is a list of rights the people do in fact have by their very nature,as described in detail and at length in the Declaration of Independence.Natural Rights.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote-

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

This is what he meant by that.Human beings DO HAVE natural,inalienable rights,and those rights are SUPPOSED to be protected BY LAW at EVERY LEVEL of government in the United States.Thats one of the things that makes America great.LOL,or WAS,anyway.

These rights exist BEFORE government,and they exist DESPITE it as well.

In any case,one of the rights inherent in mankind is the absolute right to self defense.We have the right to defend ourselves,our loved ones and our property,and we have the right to do so with personal arms suitable for such.

The Supremacy Clause makes it quite clear,crystal clear in fact,that any law or treaty made by the federal government pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Constitution and that the Constitution itself is the highest law of the ENTIRE land,and that states and the courts in different states do not have the authority to trample the Constitution.
And while I have other issues with the blatant double-speak and misconceptions of the rulings handed down by the supreme court regarding gun rights like when the winning side declared in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right,yet subject to 'reasonable regulations' rather than RIGHTFULLY being ruled to be an an uninfringable, inalienable right -which it is- and which it says so itself to be,and I generally agree with 10thers who say that the SCOTUS is nothing more or less than the fox guarding the hen house,I totally disagree with ya'll that the federal government does not have the authority to enforce the Constitutional itself upon the states,if it were to ever actually come to its senses and abide the law itself.(yeah,when pigs fly out of my butt).

In fact,the main reason I subscribe to this site is because of its eloquent argument and excellent presentation of exactly how the people have the power themselves to enforce the highest law of the land -nullification- despite the SCOTUS and the feralgov.

All the argument for giving the states the authority to regulate arms as they see fit is contrary to the Second Amendment,the Supremacy Clause,the Constitution itself,and the very principles of liberty and Inalienable rights that this nation was founded on,and consequently – just as illegitimate as the federal laws that violate it.

Kevin Gutzman fails to not only respect other people by not calling them 'retarded',he also fails to accurately represent -and thus respect- the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself.

We can definitely make the argument that laws (like the Health Care Scam) that are created from the blasphemy of a bastardized government that believes it has any power it wants under a warped and mis-rendered ruling of any one of its enumerated duties is not Constitutionally legitimate to begin with,and has no force under the clause claimed to give it any,let alone the supremacy Clause itself,but the Second Amendment is most definitely meant to apply to every form of government in the United States via the Supremacy Clause

Besides,wasn't it just 60 years ago that we found out that 'retarded' people and others deemed 'not worthy' of acting in their own self defense by the state,were those who needed to be able to defend themselves the most?
When Hitler used the Wiemar Gun Control Act of 1938 to deprive 'certain' peoples of their arms,what then happened to those people?

I believe our founders would agree with this statement-

That if your not in the custody of the state or a private mental institution,after being placed there according to a fair trail,your inalienable rights to self defense as facilitated by arms and as protected across the ENTIRE United States by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is ABSOLUTE and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

There are no rights that get transcribed from the first ten amendments to each person that can thwart any state power. A right a citizen of Canada has can not make that person immune from any law within the United States so a 'right' a federal citizen has can't make them immune from any law any state has and any right a citizen of one state has doesn't make that citizen immune from the laws of another state. The only time state power can be thwarted is when there is a restriction placed on it that is specified in the constitution.

The 14th amendment bans states from not providing any protection to only some people and not to others and declares a person a citizen of a state and a citizen of the federal government. This makes sure that certain procedurial rights exist for anyone when dealing with the federal or state governments.

That is a fact, pretty close to indisputable.

And, on top of it, you are missing the preamble of the Bill of Rights, which makes clear that the states were adding restrictions to the federal government.