Virtually all the other RIGHTS in the BofR have been incorporated subsequent to the 1878 decision in Cruishank which noted that neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments “created” those rights, but “protected” previously existing rights, and that the effect of the BofR was to restrain the Federal gov't from infringing those rights. The SC said individuals must look to their own states for protection of those rights. Cruishank of course involved the prosecution of WHITE klan “night-riders” who dis-armed and killed free blacks in the post Civil-war South.

Judge Thomas in a previous decision, and Scalia in Heller, both signaled that such a review would meet a receptive audience on the court. And there would be no reason NOT to over-turn “precedent”. The court over-turned “seperate but equal”, and the SC has stated that over-ruling previous “bad” precedent is the right thing to do. Please note that in Griswold (a post ROE case involving abortion) the court implicity included the right to keep and bear arms in their list of rights guaranteed to the “people”.

There is no way an anti-incorpation decision can pass the LAUGH test. If this or another case gets to the SC and they attempt to wriggle out of incorporting the 2A it wil generate a REAL firestorm. ALL the evidence points to the FUNDAMENTAL nature of the individual right to arms protected by the 2A, even before the 14A. And the 14th was enacted in order to make possible for blacks to defend themselves in the now free South.

Gun rights are on the march. People in opposition better think about getting out of the way unless they want to reap some un-intended consequences.

Tim, as to your comments about some rights in the Constitution applying “to some states and not to others.” That is a mischaracterisation of the issue. The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed at the federal level only, unless incorporated pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless a constitutional amendment is specifically directed at the states, it does not apply to them, unless it is incorporated. Thus, prior to the incorporation of the respective parts of the First Amendment did not apply when state governments restricted speech, only the federal government could be stopped from restricting speech. The rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution are federal in nature, only, unless they are made applicable to the states. As to the comparison with the Nineteenth Amendment, it is inapt. Because the federal constitution regulates the qualifications to vote, in regards to voting age, and gender, the Nineteent Amendment, without needing to so state, applied to the states because of the nature of the text.