2d Amendment bars ALL federal gun regulation
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2d amendment
The first ten amendments to the Constitution -- known as the Bill of Rights -- were intended to protect citizens of the various states from any domineering tendencies of the central, federal government. The writers were concerned about rights of "the people" and of "the states." Rights of "the people" included rights traditionally enjoyed, though perhaps not always spelled out.
For a state to maintain order in an emergency, a governor would deploy militiamen. A very few might be permanent, but most were drawn from volunteers. Maintaining a base of men who were relatively proficient with firearms was seen as a major necessity. The amendment was also intended as a warning that an out-of-control federal government might face armed resistance. The federal government was prohibited from infringing -- that is, chipping away around the borders -- of the right to bear arms.
The Bill of Rights, when written, was directed against the feds. It did not prohibit any state from abridging or infringing those rights. However, after the Civil War, the 13th and 14th amendments were passed in order to ensure that southern states did not deny standard rights to former slaves. Though it took quite a while, the basic individual freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights were seen as controlling state law, as well as federal law.
The Constitution says the federal government can't regulate the carrying of guns; prior to Reconstruction, the a state could have regulated the carrying of guns, but now the Constitution would appear to deny states that ability.So any federal law whatsoever regulating the carrying of firearms is not valid; that goes for background checks. But, one could argue that states might still reserve some power to regulate the bearing of guns, and, if so, states, if they wish, can enter into interstate compacts on gun control. But, consider a former slave in the 1870s. Would it have been just to permit a southern state to deny him the right of self-defense? True, this is 2013, but other situations can arise in which it may be imperative to carry a firearm. How many times has a witness, who was unable to get continual police protection or a gun-carry permit, been murdered? It happens with sickening frequency.
This all may seem a bitter pill to some. However, the proper remedy is an amendment to the Constitution that either repeals or modifies the second amendment.
Recent top court reasoning is found here: