As I see it the role of constitutional authority between the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions is in a way similar to the Wisconsin preemption statute. By that I mean just as Wisconsin’s local governments can not make firearm laws more strict than the State nor can state constitutions make amendments more strict than the U.S. constitution. Meaning a state constitution can not trump the federal constitution. On the other hand the U.S. constitution must recognize the state’s authority to self govern.
The landmark cases of Heller and McDonald reflect the division of constitutional authority. Both cases are immensely important in establishing our federal fundamental right to keep and bear arms but their impact at the state level is less compelling. Heller established that every qualified citizen of the United states is entitled to the right to keep and bear arms and congress can not eviscerate (infringe) that right. The McDonald ruling built on the Heller ruling by declaring that the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms was also incorporated to the states. Meaning that state and local governments also may not enact laws that would deny a qualified individual from the right to posses a firearm. However, both rulings fell short of dictating the time. place and manner under which the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised. I believe SCOTUS intentionally left that determination up to the states. The Wisconsin Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue in State v Hamdan.
¶41. Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25. The State must be especially vigilant in circumstances where a person's need to exercise the right is the most pronounced. If the State applies reasonable laws in circumstances that unreasonably impair the right to keep and bear arms, the State's police power must yield in those circumstances to the exercise of the right. The prohibition of conduct that is indispensable to the right to keep (possess) or bear (carry) arms for lawful purposes will not be sustained.
¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. See State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, 244 Wis.2d582, 628 N.W.2d820. It is constitutional. We hold that only if the public benefit in this exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional as applied.
Fortunately paragraph 41 is there as a control on paragraph 46.
My opinion: The 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution establishes that every qualified U.S. citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be denied by federal, state or local governments. The regulation of the time, place and manner by which that right is exercised is left to the individual states.