Originally Posted by kensb2
I thought that the 2A provides protection from the FED .gov regarding the RKBA, and basically left it up to the individual states to decide what weapons their citizens have. This makes the most sense to me, since the citizens are supposed to have weapons to defend their state from FED .gov tyranny. Why does the SCOTUS have to make this so complicated?
No, the 2nd Amendment says you have a right, enforceable against the federal fgovernment only, to keep and bear arms. The supreme court said, recently, in McDonald, that the 14th Amendment means that the states are also not allowed to violate the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about the 2nd Amendment has ever said "this issue is reserved to the states."
The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," but under the current interpretation of either the commerce clause or the taxing power, the feds have authority to regulate guns, expresssly delegated by the constitution.