[Sandy]

IF the second amendment were incorporated (ie., applied to the states) the word "arms" could be interpreted by the USSC, some time in the future, as to NOT include handguns.

Does that ruling change anything? Any state laws? No, it doesn't.

But, that ruling now allows the gun grabbers to go after state constitutions that protect "arms", and push for laws banning hadguns since they're not protected by the second amendment. The USSC says so, and that applies to all states laws.

Can they do this now? Sure, but it would be up to each state court, possibly a federal appeals court, to determine the definition of "arms" in their state constitution.

Just because a right is incorporated, doesn't mean that a state can't provide protection of a right above and beyond what the federal Constitution requires. And federal appeals courts don't touch state supreme court decisions. States would be free to protect a right to own handguns, regardless of what SCOTUS says.

[robertpaulsen]

In my hypothetical, SCOTUS rules that a handgun is not protected by the incorporated second amendment. I agree, the states are free to protect handguns, or not. Let's say they do.

Now, along comes a citizen of the state (funded by the gun grabbers) and he files a suit saying that the state law allowing handguns violates his unalienable right to life, liberty, and property, in that the vast majority of crimes involving guns use handguns.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how the suit would be worded. But I imagine it would be worded similar to the justification used in the California AWB or the Federal AWB.

The point being that without second amendment protection, the gun grabbers would be free to pursue court cases in favorable venues. It would be appealed to the federal courts. It may go to the USSC.

Nevertheless, it would have a domino effect on other states.