Reading the language of the Second Amendment begs the question for me, how is it that states have latitude in restricting the right to keep or bear arms? One can make the argument that our equally precious rights documented in the Bill of Rights, like freedom of speech and worship, are restrictions written against Congress and therefore the application of those restrictions against the states depends on the 14th amendment, which history tells us the Supreme Court has a checkered history rather than a consistent history in applying the Bill of Rights against the states.
The Second Amendment does not limit the application to Congress but makes it a general prescription, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," presumably by any governmental entity, federal or state. Now that Scalia has documented that right in his opinion Washington DC vs. Heller, why is that not applied uniformly against every "infringement" conceived by every blue state? Once the right to keep arms was confirmed by Scalia why not the right to bear arms?
I know I'm not up on the jurisprudence of gun control but I would like to be informed.
