While the Bill of Rights presented what inalienable rights each citizen of the US has, the amendments are simply that. Amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments did not apply to the States until the 14th amendment was adopted applying them to the States either under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the Amendment OR under the due process clause of the Amendment.
I digress to remind us of our history and the fact that we fought the bloodiest war within a nation, in the history of nations ( the civil war) over whether the Federal Government had the right to impose it's will on the individual states. In fact, Confederate States were refused re-union and representation back in Congress unless and until they ratified the 14th Amendment, which allowed the Federal Government to impose it's will on individual states.
The USSC in the Heller case stated for the 1st time that the 2nd amendment gave the individual citizen the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. ( I interpret keep as to house and bear as to carry. That is probably debatable anyway)
The McDonald case was just argued. The Plaintiff,s attorney argued that the privileges and immunities clause guaranteed his individual right and that the Amendment (14th) thereby applies that right to the States. The Justices peppered him as that position would be unprecedented and would mean that States could not impose restrictions on individuals right to keep and bear arms.
The NRA attorney argued the due process argument, which translates to the fact that while it would be an individual right to keep and bear arms, constitutionally protected; States would have the right to impose "reasonable" restrictions. Those restrictions MUST meet 2 tests. That is it must be limited in scope ( written very specifically, not in general sweeping language) and satisfy a "significant governmental purpose" ( so the Government must show the need). It was a good strategy because, while the USSC showed part of its hand with Heller, most constitutional lawyers agreed that their argument would be the one to fly, if the Court was going to FINALLY recognise OUR Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
If the USSC does come out and finally say it, expect that there will be much litigation as to what and how much restrictions States can place on individuals constitutional right. That is always a balancing test. The best example I can give is our 1st amendment constitutional right to free speech which was enforced on the States by the 14th Amendment; yet States have and had the right ( which i think all did) to pass a criminal law that says you cant yell out in a theater" fire" These types of State restrictions will be the next deluge of cases if (AND WHEN) the USSC resolves this case.
Of course I could be surprised and they don't rule in OUR favor; but I doubt it. Oh well, sorry for rambling on, but I wanted to be as accurate as possible to provide a reasoned response to your questions. Oh and yes, I do have a juris doctorate degree; but don't hold it against me!
