As the Czar understands the editorial, The New York Times takes the position that the Bill of Rights is limited only to the federal government. For example, the First Amendment—which the Czar agrees again with ‘Puter is the amendment they know best at the Times—clearly states Congress shall pass no law….
One of the bigger misconceptions the Czar must correct in lots of people is that the First Amendment does not provide carte blanche for the average citizen to say what he or she wants; instead, it merely states that the Federal government cannot prohibit you from speaking your mind; indeed, the constitutions of all 50 states tend to recognize this right as well, and some municipalities do as well in their municipal charters. Why? Because the First Amendment stops at the Federal level; it makes no requirements of states, counties, or smaller governments to do the same.
And so on across the Bill of Rights.
Except one. The Second Amendment does not say anything about Congress. Its wording is unique among the other nine in the Bill of Rights when it addresses, specifically, the People. There is no glossary or definitions list to define what is meant by The People.
So while the Times is right that the Bill of Rights was written at the Federal level, the Second Amendment does not exclude other levels the way the rest of the Bill does. They grudgingly acknowledge this by saying that SCOTUS should answer once and for all whether the Bill applies to all people at all levels of government, and by saying this, confess that the Second does.
But their reading of the Constitution is predictably light. The Bill of Rights need not apply to all levels of government as each Amendment clarifies for itself where it applies and does not. So what this really is comes down to the usual Liberal vs Conservative battle “what is meant by ‘the People?’” The liberal say People refers solely to a well-regulated militia, and therefore guns do not belong in the public. Conservatives say the People refers to all citizens of the United States, public or private, and that therefore gun ownership is a personal decision.
Frankly, as an Illinois resident, the Czar would like to better define shall not be infringed. Because even if the Chicago gun ban is struck down—as by rights it must as a badly failed experiment that resulted in thousands of deaths—there will be law after law infringing what types of ammunition can be purchased, restrictions on firearm type, loading (only one bullet per weapon maximum, which can only be loaded into the weapon less than one minute before firing), and other nonsense that adds up to an ersatz ban.