That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.

Quite so, along with this clause of the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not alone in thinking that California's oppressive may-issue CCW laws deny citizens the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and would welcome Federal intervention in this specific instance.

Yet somehow the 1st or 5th Amendment are applied across all states uniformly, unlike the 2nd.

States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal.

This is currently what is the case with shall-issue vs may-issue, at least until SCOTUS clarifies otherwise.

> the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Seems like denying some people the right to bear arms would pretty plainly constitute an infringement, no?

SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue, so it is technically undetermined. SCOTUS has ruled in other cases that there are some situations where people can be denied those rights legally, so determining the outcome is not as simple as reading the text. SCOTUS generally evaluates the law in a broader context than just the written text.

How Grand Juries work is up to the states. They vary a lot. Even how regular juries work is up to the states eg: Oregon doesn't require unanimous verdict. I am sure you can dig into 1st amendment and find differences across the states. I am sure states have laws on how and where you can petition.

Oregon and Lousiana didn't. They do now, thanks to a recent SCOTUS case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon

To incorporate, or not incorporate - that is the question.

State laws that contradict federal legislation is not a foundation of Federalism, though.

1. It sort of is. The prevailing founding arguments for federalism was as a check against the national government. Even today, 35 states contradict the federal government's regulation that states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use"

2. Only SCOTUS can definitively say whether or not may-issue contradicts the 2nd.

Right, but the Federal Government has stepped in when it was taken too far. That's why Ruby Bridges was escorted to school 60 years ago.

But shall-issue permits are only common in the first place because states were allowed to independently try it out. Up until the mid-90s, almost all states were either may-issue or no-issue.

Do you have a source for that? Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict.

> Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict

This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either.

Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.

Wikipedia has a good summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_.... (there's supposed to be a period at the end of the link).

Of course, concealed carry restrictions aren't the only gun laws in the country, but I have to admit I'm just not very informed on any others. I do know California's handgun registry has gotten stricter.