Can you cite the relevant section of the Constitution that grants such powers to the executive branch?

Do you think this was in Paris Texas?

Does the second amendment enumerate an individual right to keep and bear arms? If it does then I do not see how the original intent was to protect States. The right is conferred to the People, not the States. Nowhere else in the constitution would the phrase the People refer to States. Could you please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that it is about states rights?

Yes. There are limits to governmental powers at all levels. Just because a State claims interests does not mean they can make whatever laws they wish. They too have to follow the law.

I’m not a huge fan of the H and T myself but the opinion in Dobbs wasn’t arbitrary. It was quite detailed and well layer out and even if disagreeing with it arbitrarily hardly seems to fit.

So there is an individual right? Sure there is a balance in some way but that does not allow for anything. Could the state bring back stop and frisk only with check points and stoping and frisking everyone? The argument could be made that such laws would serve the interests of the state and infringing upon the 4th amendment rights is an acceptable cost. Would that be okay too as it would likely do more to prevent crime including shootings than overly restrictive concealed carry licensing laws would.

With free speech we don’t have much if any prior restraints. There is no license needed to preach of the corner or print political flyers. There is no loss of free speech rights after one has served a sentence for a felony or some misdemeanors.

I personally do not believe there should be any exceptions as an ideal at least. If speech or gun control is wanted then the answer is to amend the constitution. Allowing for more governmental power at any level than what is specifically enumerated is wrong in my view and is a greater danger in the long run then most other issues. What checks and balances are there on governmental powers if they can choose any and all they want? However I also know that’s not practical or probable as like with everything there are opposing interests and views and some compromise has to happen.

If you say so. I was simply pointing out that the court has ruled on the question of incorporation already and the case that is at issue in this tread is about a separate question.

Why do you believe incorporation is at question in this particular case? Is NY putting forward an argument that they are not bound by the second amendment of the federal constitution? Is that or similar arguments being presented by any of the parties involved? Do you believe such arguments should be made?

Incorporation of the second amendment has already been ruled on and settled in McDonald v Chicago. That is not the question in the current case.