SCOTUS is set to decide whether or not state and local gun laws violate Second Amendment rights. Suppose your city disallows the possession of handguns. Then the local law would be in at least apparent conflict with the Second Amendment which has recently been recognized by SCOTUS as granting an individual (as opposed to collective) right to keep and bear arms. Now it strikes me that the Fourteenth Amendment resolves the matter. In Section One we read, "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 . . . ."
If we interpret 'privileges' to cover rights, then the right to keep and bear arms falls under the first clause. Accordingly, the citizen's constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms cannot be nullified by any state or local law. And if we interpret 'liberty' in the second clause to cover the liberty to defend oneself with appropriate means against a deadly attack, then the second clause too rules out any state or local abridgement of the right to keep and bear arms.
So what's to discuss? [He said with a grin.]