Sorry, Drammach, correct amendment. This was a local law he was fighting, not a federal one. The second amendment only applies to the federal government.
The 14th amendment applies due process to the states -- he's saying that Wilmette's laws violate his RKBA, a right so fundamental to liberty, that the states must also protect it. The USSC has yet to hear such a case and, until then, the second amendment only applies to the feds.
His RKBA is protected by the Illinois state constitution. Because of home rule, individual cities (like Chicago, Morton Grove, and Wilmette) may pass their own gun laws (as long as the laws don't violate the Illinois state constitution).
These laws do not.
How much is Sarah Brady paying you?
You may be correct as to "an argument" for claiming 14th amendment rights violation..
Facts are facts.. The chances of getting a 2nd amendment rights case before the courts is practically zero, so other legal arguments must be made..
So, I guess the 14th amendment is as good as any...
We have discussed the 2nd amendment issue before.
Just to re-iterate my "opinion", ( I am not a laywer, and frankly don't give a tinker's damn about all the legalese and tricks.. The constitution was written for the layman, not the lawyer.. )
I will simply say that it prohibits infringement on a recognized individual right, and since it is not a specific prohibition, it is a ( general ? ) prohibition, which prohibits not only the Federal government, but the States and even "the people"..( local government, home rule, etc.)
The individual states accepted that prohibition by ratifying the Constitution, and later, the Bill of Rights.
As the recognized Supreme Law of the Land, the States are obligated to model their constitutions and statutes in comformance with the constitution, just as much as congress is obligated to do so.. ( I realize I'm speaking of the "ideal" here, not reality.. )
It's lawyers and the courts that have muddied up the constitution and it's meaning..
The meaning of the 2nd is quite clear.. and IMHO, should have been the only argument necessary to defend the subject's rights..