>>>"Alito noted that while fully binding on states and cities, the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
>>>My question on this is this: To which other of the 10 Amendments would the courts apply this?
Well, the first amendment has limits for slander and libel. Communities frequently require permits for large assemblies.
There are some that think there should be restrictions on a convicted felon's right to have a gun, or perhaps those that have been determined to be mentally ill.
Prior to the First Amendment, words were used to further criminal activity or civil strife, in activities like libel, slander, perjury, forgery, spying, and sedition. No reasonable person considered for a moment that these things constituted nonpunishable free speech. So, despite the reality that words could be used for criminal purposes, the First Amendment prohibited the Government from limiting that speech which was lawful.
Similarly, prior to the Second Amendment, firearms were most certainly used for criminal activity. Yet despite the possibility that some people would use firearms for criminal purposes, the people prohibited the Government from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
The key difference here is that when someone has tried to suppress free speech, the courts, and for a time the media, have vigorously defended the right to use words which might be offensive, but not unlawful.
With the Second Amendment, the courts, and the media, have not had a similar history of vigorous defense of the right to keep and bear arms. And that is a disgrace.