[USAFNoDak]

My take on this is that we have not given the federal government more power via McDonald. All we have done is tell the states that they must also protect FUNDAMENTAL, INDIVIDUAL, RIGHTS, in accordance with the constitution. The states should NOT have the POWER to trample our RIGHTS, any more than the federal government does. That's what I'm getting out of Heller, McDonald, and the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments in the BOR.

Does a state have the POWER to force ALL of the citizens to belong to one specific religion which is chosen by that state? If the USSC says "NO", does this mean that the federal government is given more power over the states to regulate religious activities? I don't believe it does.

If a specific state said that all churches must pay an annual duty of 10% of their collections as a tithe to the state, would the USSC let that ride? If the USSC said this was in violation of the first amendment, does that mean the federal government now has more power over the states rights? I'm not sure it does.

What if a state said that they no longer believed in Miranda rights being given until the actual day of the trial for the suspect? Would the USSC let that pass? If not, would it be the feds trumping states rights?

What if a certain state said that only one newspaper, state approved, was legal to print and distribute within that state? Should that be left up to the state's "rights"? I believe most americans would look to the BOR to resolve that issue.

I say that states do not have the "power" or the "rights" to trump FUNDAMENTAL, INDIVIDUAL, RIGHTS". The USSC telling them so is not necessarily a power grab by the federal government. It's a lecture telling the states to abide by the United States Constitution when you pass laws, or the USSC will be likely to strike down such laws which seem to run afoul of the Constitution.

Here's two examples I can see happening.

1. The state of Illinois passes a law which effectively states that in order to carry a concealed handgun in public, one must have a permit to do so, which will involve training and a test, plus a processing fee. I seriously doubt the USSC would strike that down as it may not directly violate the 2nd A. It doesn't say you can't keep and bear arms, it says that if you want to bear arms in a concealed manner, the state has reason to check out why you want to do so. Provided they don't put undue burdens in your way, such as a fee of $10,000.00, it may pass Constitutional muster as the USSC sees it.

2. The City of Chicago says that no one can possess any handguns at all within the city limits, even in their own home. This is clearly in violation of the 2nd A. and the USSC should and likely would strike it down, as they just did.

I don't see this as the feds imposing new laws on, or new powers over, the states. I see it as the feds making sure that our fundamental, individual, rights are protected against state, as well as federal, violations.