The United States Supreme Court has a very spotty history, predicated I will suppose, upon the variable nature of Man's honesty.<quoted text>
You said it better than me. The right to possess isn't regulated. The use is regulated by state law and local ordinance. I believe Marauder was eluding to the 14th amendment which is another discussion. The right to keep and bear arms was already a right in the state constitutions. Another discussion in an erroneous power grab by the supreme court.
Federal constitutional law is limited to regulation of commerce. There shouldn't be any federal laws pertaining to possession. Another court case down the road, I suppose.
The 'commerce clause' was thought necessary by the Founders of the United States, because in that period leading up to the U.S. Constitution, many states engaged in restraint of trade practices, even going so far as to raise prohibitively high tariffs on other state's products upon crossing their own borders.
The whole idea behind that clause, when you read the debates of the Continental Congress while U.S. Constitution was being hammered out, was to ensure free trade amongst the states.
In no part of those discussions was any thought raised regarding 'controlling' what the states passed between each other.
That thought, the one about 'controlling,' was raised much later, in the Supreme Court, by men with an ulterior motive.
Since then, those rulings have had a most perverse affect, even going so far as to declare that the U.S. government has the authority to control what a farmer might grow on his own land, for his own consumption!
That is so hideous as to fly directly into the face everything the U.S. Constitution was meant to protect.
See this too: