This isn't exactly related to setting up a individual RKBA...
If the 2A refers to the individual RKBA, then NFA's are obvious infringements...
If the 2A is a state right, isn't it still infringing on the state's RKBA?
Could it be argued that the NFA's infringe on the state's RBKA?
Something along the lines that if the state has a RKBA, then it is up to the state to govern the use/legalities/"distribution of arms" within the state?
Obviously, the state government counts, but would a citizen of that state be considered part of the state in this sense?
If the citizen of a state counts as part of the state for the state's RKBA, then the NFA's infringe on the RKBA of that state because they restrict what can and can't be done by the state.
Could this be used to remove federal firearms laws, except for the interstate commerce ones?
Or, could the NFA's be challenged without forcing the courts to rule the 2A as state/individual right?
If the 2A refers to the individual RKBA, then NFA's are obvious infringements...
If the 2A is a state right, isn't it still infringing on the state's RKBA?
Could it be argued that the NFA's infringe on the state's RBKA?
Something along the lines that if the state has a RKBA, then it is up to the state to govern the use/legalities/"distribution of arms" within the state?
Obviously, the state government counts, but would a citizen of that state be considered part of the state in this sense?
If the citizen of a state counts as part of the state for the state's RKBA, then the NFA's infringe on the RKBA of that state because they restrict what can and can't be done by the state.
Could this be used to remove federal firearms laws, except for the interstate commerce ones?
Or, could the NFA's be challenged without forcing the courts to rule the 2A as state/individual right?