+1 Keep the federal government as far away form state issues as possible.
Except that this actually is
not a state issue, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly.
The RKBA is a right that preexists and is not dependent on the Constitution.
Heller reaffirmed this long-standing point clearly. However, the
regulation of the RKBA is expressly restricted by the Second Amendment and, although SCOTUS has yet to directly rule that the Second Amendment extends against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, it is basically a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will rule to that effect when the matter is directly before the court. Modern 14A jurisprudence virtually guarantees it, as Scalia suggested in his famous footnote in
Heller.
Thus, regulation of the RKBA actually is
not left to the states. Rather, the Constitution, through the 2A/14A, protects the RKBA at the
federal level, on a
nationwide basis (similar to how the 4A/14A protects us all on the federal/national level from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.).
Moreover, when read correctly in light of clear evidence in the legislative record and other contemporaneous indicia, the 2A prohibits virtually
all regulation of the RKBA--the protection is
at least on par with the protections established by the 1A regarding speech, which permits only narrowly tailored regulation that is necessary to a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive option.
Thus, if read and applied correctly, the protections of the 2A/14A nullify the vast majority of regulations currently in place relating to the possession and carrying of arms--as it should be.
Our struggle is to bring practical reality into line with this legal fact.