[lepton]

Not quite; Cruikshank did not involve the states' obedience to the Bill of Rights, because it was a federal law involved. What Criukshank said was that the 14th Amendment protected citizens from state actors, not private individuals. (Cruikshank et al. were accused of violating the civil rights of several black citizens, but the Court ruled that was impossible; in fact they had merely committed the more mundane crime of murder, whose prosecution was not within the authority of the United States; that was the state's job.)

I'm not arguing as to whether they were correct or not, but that is what they opined.

[Abundy]

Cruickshank also said that the "right to carry arms for a lawful purpose is not a right enumerated in the constitution; neither is it dependant upon that instrument for existence."

Clearly a declaration that the right to carry arms for a lawful purpose is a fundamental, indivdidual right. The problem was at that time the 14th Amendment had not incorporated the BOR so that a citizen could successfully invoke the BOR against his state.