Name a case, post 14th amendment, where the U.S. Supreme Court actually heard the case and ruled that the second amendment did not protect the RKBA against state government infringement AND that are still "good law". Presser comes to mind, but that one ruled that the first right to free assembly and petition (other than to Congress) is also not protected, and for the same reason. That is no longer "good law".
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) -- "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) -- "The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the proposition that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms."
MILLER v. TEXAS, 153 U.S. 535 (1894) -- "In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) -- "... the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons ..."
Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876)(Jefferson Circuit Court)
"It is manifest from the language of the article, and from the expressions of these learned commentators, that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc."
"This article, however, is a restraint upon federal, and not upon State legislation."
And of couse the 9th Circuit Cout has been quite outspoken. They have held that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.
Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003).