The 2A Modified the consitution as it was written after article I. That is what amendment means. So if one continues to read past article I and arrives at the amendment which modified it, one could, if literate, cleary read that the states are required. You should read Thomas Cooley (1880):

---------------------------

While later amendments did modify the heart of the Constutition, to argue that the Bill of Rights was something other than a confirmation of Rights is to ignore history.

Read any part of the Constitution and parts that are no longer in force are lined out. You'll notice that Article I section 10 is not lined out, and is very much active.

States cannot keep troops in times of peace without the consent of Congress. The National Guard is setup by an act of Congress and is subject to Federal control.

The Second Amendment does not supercede nor invalidate Article I section 10 and you'll find no binding court case or law that says otherwise.

He keeps taking parts of court cases out of context then listing citations when the cases in question do not support his claim.

I could simply take PRESSER v. ILLINOIS. and write

"in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national

government as well as in view of its general powers, the

States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing

arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful

resource for maintaining the public security."

While that is absolutely the wording in Presser, it's dishonest to present it without context, as Presser afirmed that States can keep private militias from forming, and the above wording is from the Plantiff in Error and not the conclusion of the Court.

WeikuBoy keeps taking passages out of context in the hope that others will not be familiar with the law in question.

Presser does conclude.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing

arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

This is the closest a Supreme Court decision comes at affirming whether or not States can or cannot regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The court ruled

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which

only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military

organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in citiesand towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of

the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in

question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States."

Note, that the above referenced "even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view" refers to the immediately quoted passage. When Presser was decided, the Constitution was still affirmed to only apply to the Federal Government and not limit the ability of States, yet even here the Court ruled that States cannot "prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security"

Notice that Presser himself was not in the State Militia, yet the Court found it important enough to include its decision the statement that States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.

You may find the full text of Presser at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/presser.txt

Assuming that UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK hasn't been misquoted while I wrote this reply, I'll head off that often misquoted case.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;"

Is what you'll often read, and it's why I am no longer a member of the ACLU, as they sent me a fund raiser with the above quote, neglecting the full text of

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;

neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

That is because Constitutional rights are those that couldn't exist without the Consitution, such as voting for Federal Office, natural rights such as speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms are not dependent upon the Consitution and exist without such a document ever being written. That's why they are referred to as natural rights.