Second Amendment, Federal vs. State Law

[Ripsnortr]

I was having a conversation with a friend and an interesting point came up that I have no insight to and wanted to put it up for discussion.

With the recent battle over the Arizona immigration laws, my very stripped down basic understanding is that federal law trumps state law so therefore the state law was disallowed for that reason. I know I am painting with a very broad brush there, but that was my understanding.

So, my question is this;
If federal law overrules state law, why is it that if the second amendment which is backed by federal law allows me to bear arms, why are states allowed to infringe upon that constitutional right?

I just wanted some insight without starting a flame war because I have gotten so many insightful, well thought out points of view here I wanted to hear what you guys had to say.

 

[carbinemike]

Great question!...and I'm not sure of the complete answer. The feds do trump states for some things. I believe states can't take away your 2nd ammendment rights but I also believe states are permitted to make their own laws that can limit what you can purchase. I think that's what happened in the lawsuit against DC. They had a total ban on and the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the 2nd ammendment as an individual right that can't be denied. DC was forced to permit gun sales but they have kept a lot of the draconian requirements in place.

 

[Rossignol]

Similar to what CMike said, I have also heard or at least I understand it as such;

States are able to put restrictions on it, or limit or regulate, but not do away with it.

 

[John A.]

In general, most states (all belonging to the union--USA) by agreement to uphold and abide by Federal law, but an individual state may also add/increase or altogether prohibit things further than Federal law requires.

Reference NY,NJ, CA where gun rights are heavily restricted.

If a state(s) ceded from the union like what happened during the Civil War, they no longer have to follow the rules set forth by the union and become sovereign countries all of their own again just by breaking the ties and setting up their own government system and rules and laws and currency, etc.

Abraham Lincoln should have accepted all 13 of the south's succession letters from day one and no civil war ever happen, but there were too many valuable resources they would no longer obtain freely (or at least cheaply) and there were so many supplies and materials needed for the industrial age and a lot of deep pockets wanting to get even richer from it that simply had to have it to accomplish their goals. It has always been about power and is no different today.

The civil war was based largely on the the supposed protection of human rights (slavery, which I too feel was wrong on every level) but that wasn't the entire or only consideration behind the President and Congress' reasoning. Don't believe that for a second because a vast majority of the people who fought for the CSA never owned a slave or even owned property to need a slave.

They fought for the simple fact of the matter that our Government gave them no alternative of freedom of choice and would not allow them peace without war. Does our Government think any less of you or I today?

History has a tendency to repeat itself, and our peaceful existence is stretched pretty thin on some topics. Agree with me or not, but I'm not blind to what I see, nor deaf to what I hear and have a mind of my own to make the important decisions for myself.

 

[carbinemike]

Good points John. Maybe some of the southern MO members will chime in. Much of the civil war was about states rights (south) versus federal power (north). State and individual rights have been going downhill since while federal power has grown. This has snowballed since WWII.