[William Tell]

coloradan said: "Wrong ... as it stands, unless an article has been officially incorporated by the 14th amendment, it ONLY applies to the federal government."

I strongly disagree. There is no language in the 14th amendment or anywhere in the Constitution which suggests that laws do not have meaning until the Supreme Court specifically says they do. The 14th amendment says that my immunities must be respected by the states. The Second Amendment clearly states that I am immune from any infringement of my right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court invented the incorporation concept by refusing to take cases early on which would clarify the broad meaning of the 14th. Instead they have issued narrow rulings which give them power that the Constitution doesn't.

[coloradan]

I agree with you, as I indicated in my closing statement. However, there have been federal cases concerning state-level gun control, which were let stand because the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment only served as a restraint to the federal, not state, government, and thus left states free to prohibit guns as they wished. (Which is not to say I agree with this sentiment.) But in this case, Washington DC is not a state, and this excuse to allow gun control to remain on the books falls. It's too bad we can't have the same judges who ruled that the Second Amendment only stays the hand of the federal government, rule on gun control in D.C. as well. They'd have to either throw out all gun control (foir D.C.), or write a hopelessly contorted or clearly contradictory ruling upholding it.