The Right to Bear Arms in Your State Constitution

[javero]

It was brought to my attention earlier today that the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of the State of Maryland does NOT guarantee a right to bear arms.  It seems that my state's constitution is one of the few that lacks a state-level equivalent of the federal 2nd amendment.

Random but still interesting.  I wonder why the majority of the states opted to include a provision for inhabitants bearing arms if it's already covered at the federal level by the US Constitution.  Perhaps it was a safeguard against a repeal in part of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: replaced "appeal" with "repeal in part".  Spell check is not always kind.

[henrikegerman]

I can't offer you any guidance about what states have a parallel right to bear arms clause in their constitutions or why.  I've never considered the question>

But I can offer some guidance as to why states in general provide in their constitutions rights parallel to those already contained in the U.S. Constitution.

A great many state constitutions guarantee parallel rights found in the federal constitution.  
One reason is that state courts interpret these rights semi-independently from the way federal courts interpret the parallel federal constitutional rights.
Generally, while we are all guaranteed a threshold of protection under federal constitutional law, states can expand the analogous state-constitutional protections to provide additional guarantees to the individual in state courts.  
For instance, although one may have a losing argument that one was the victim of an unreasonable search or seizure (under the US Const. Fourth Amendment, as it applies in both federal and state courts) one may have a successful argument of a parallel rights deprivation under one's state's constitution (as it applies only in the courts of the state in which the claimed violation occurred). 
But of course that winning argument would depend on a) the existence of an applicable state constitutional provision (which may or may not exist), and b) an interpretation of that provision by state courts which differs from that by federal courts on a parallel federal constitutional provision.

[kdogg36]

To henrik's response, I'd also like to add that the Bill of Rights was originally construed only to limit the federal government's actions, and did not apply to laws passed by the states. It was not until after the adoption of the 14th Amendment that the guarantees of individual freedom under the Bill of Rights were taken to bind state governments, under the doctrine of incorporation.

[henrikegerman]

^thank you KDogg, an important add.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

NVM, I see that my post was redundant thanks to kdogg.