United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. you're confused

You quote my response:

"yagotme: Note: It is a doctrine in statutory construction that statutes that are in pari materia must be construed together.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is, was and will always be securing individual rights. The 2A does not secure a state's right to have a militia."

...and attributed it to yagotme. Well, that's just an "oops".

But your response:

"Tap dancing along with johnston I see. I see now why you named yourself 'yagotme'.
The bor also limited congressional authority."

You just don't seem to get it. The BoR isn't just another law. It is, along with parts of the Constitution, founding assumptions and principles upon which the government is based.

From the Bill of Rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

That's declarative and restrictive not just restrictive. The people had confidence in their own state elected legislators and officials but viewed national governments with suspicion. So yes initially the restrictions within the BoR were explicitly on the federal government but many are now rightly incorporated as state restrictions as well.

We do not accept restrictions on free speech as okay if a state makes that law.