To wit: if anyone recalls and remembers, Jazzy specifically stated his opposition to "Texas gun culture" being imposed on his state via rulings and efforts approving national carry-conceal. He was quite out of his mind in rage that the exercise of the Second Amendment without infringement would be upheld nationally. Amusing to say the least considering he has repeatedly stated that all our enumerated rights are subject to 'reasonable regulation' (as determined by liberals like himself) - while at the same time, insisting the "rights' created by SCOTUS are beyond review and, unless the Congress overturns a ruling via legislation that the court does not rule unConstitutional; 'the law of the land'.
The states are sovereign entities that have chosen to confederate under the umbrella of the Constitution. To that end, each state can reasonably regulate firearms as they see fit, and there is no requirement of uniformity since firearms possession is intrinsically a local concern. So, yes, Philadelphia ought to have the right to reject the trappings of Texas gun culture if it determines that open carry in the public square is inappropriate. And a Texan traveling to Philly with a firearm (or vice versa) should be subject to local laws, just as he is when purchasing/consuming alcohol.
Now the Second Amendment applies to the states and places an absolute restriction on the ability to regulate. As explained in Heller, the state can regulate, but cannot deny the right of self-defense which is the purpose of the RKBA. Hence, a ban on handguns is unconstitutional - but not a regime of registration and insurance, except to the extent such regime is so onerous as to effectively deny the fundamental right.
And that's why marriage equality is the law of the land. The Constitutional right at stake is the equal protection of the law. And a state that chooses to ban the right of gays to marry under the civil law, while preserving that status for opposite sex couples, has denied homosexuals the law's equal protection. That violation of the federal Constitution is why Roy Moore was removed from office for refusing to permit gays to marry in Alabama. Alabama's constitution may define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that constitution violates the Federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
So there's no contradiction in my positions - Pennsylvania's gun laws are consistent with the Federal Constitution, but Alabama's prohibition on same sex civil marriage is not.
