I have done research and throughout history, the U S Supreme Court has allowed states to enact gun laws that directly violate many peoples interpretation of the second amendment right to bear arms. Have a look at the various states and their "black" laws. then there is the "savages" who were allowed to be legally killed for the good of a nation.
The U S Constitution actually gives the individual states the "right to regulate"
I guess the thing that really upsets me is when some "Patriots" feel that it is OK to disregard or are even willing to give up other parts of the U S Constitution in order to protect the Second Amendment.
The United States Constitution is an entire document, consisting of the Articles of incorporation, and the Amendments. Once it is not taken in its entirety the United States no longer exists for without the Articles of incorporation there is NO U S A but instead just a well armed lawless land
just my thoughts,
Al
Whether or not the SCOTUS has "allowed" the states to regulate Constitutionally protected rights depends largely on how the Court has interpreted and applied the 14th Amendment.
As initially written and ratified, the Constitution "gives" the states nothing. Instead, it is the states giving certain powers and authority to the federal government, prohibiting the federal government from infringing or abridging certain rights and reserving the all remaining unenumerated rights to the states or to the people, collectively and individually.
In 1866 the 14th Amendment created the status of citizen of the United States, separate and apart from state citizenship and prohibited the states from abridging the privileges and immunities of US citizens. However, it did not define or enumerate any privileges and immunities so it is left to the courts to determine what those privileges and immunities are and then decide if the states have or have not abridged them.
When incorporating Constitutional limitations against the states, the Court has shied away from making decisions based on the privilege and immunities clause largely due to the uncertainty created by lack of enumeration, preferring to base their rulings in due process and/or equal protection whenever possible.
In doing this, the Court has, at times, based a ruling in the theory of Substantive Due Process. SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments which exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts find the majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the process of enforcement actually is.