Aguila Blanca
Staff
This is true. Originally the 2nd Amendment constrained only the Federal government. But, as you also point out, most (if not all) of the original states had a corollary provision in their own constitutions.44 AMP said:One of the problems with permits (and I agree that the concept is a violation of the accepted understanding of the word "infringed") is that they are state laws. Looking at the Federal Constitution and calling all repugnant state laws unconstitutional as a blanket statement is incorrect.
However, the SCOTUS has now determined that, courtesy of the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment now DOES constrain the states. So it's not a matter of looking at state laws and saying that all state laws we find repugnant are unconstitutional. But, the ones that expressly run contrary to the Constitution certainly are unconstitutional.
The laws pertaining to firearms are an interesting package. Some states allow open carry without any permit, thus satisfying the 2nd Amendment (and their own state constitutions). In such states, it can be argued that a permit and a fee to carry concealed is perhaps not an infringement (although I would disagree), since the person can carry openly.
But any number of states, including (ironically) some whose own constitutions supposedly guarantee the RKBA, don't allow ANY carry without a permit. And I submit that such a situation is unconstitutional.