Ken H also asks:"Does having the Second Amendment unincorporated help protect the RKBA from Federal encroachment?"
The term "incorporation" is used to describe the glacially slow process whereby the Supreme Court accepts difficult cases and provides the freedom we seek from onerous state laws.
There is quite a controversy within the pro-gun community regarding which cases should be considered. Since I wish to have my infringed right restored in my lifetime, I don't feel that I have the luxury to wait for just the right case.
Those who believe that there is some optimum series of cases would probably prefer to see the smallest possible movement in each successive case.
Generally, the Supreme Court should decide cases which remove federal infringements prior to suggesting that the Second Amendment applies to individual states.
A decision that "shall not be infringed" is equivalent to "Congess shall make no law" would be a great start. This would shut down the unConstitutional system of FFLs, gun registration, the BATFE, and anti-bayonet laws. If only our Founders had been just a little more suspicious of government power. I am sure that they are rolling in their graves to hear me say that. A simple ruling that requiring a serial number on a firearm is an infringement would have almost the same effect.
Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court warned the legislature of Massachusetts that they needed to allow gay marriage. The government actually has no business interfering with what was a church matter for centuries, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court has taken a different approach to the problem of granting freedom.
In much the same manner, the US Supreme Court needs to warn the states that it will no longer facilitate gun control and it needs to warn the Congress that there may be need to start the amendment process with regard to WMDs or nuclear tactical weapons. This is long past due.
Once the US Supreme Court clears up the federal system, it would then be time to recognize that the "right" to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by anybody, including the states. The encouraging trend in concealed-carry laws has already resulted in both Vermont and Alaska not requiring permits. Incorporation of the Second Amendment would require that all states stop infringing the right to carry a concealed arm.
Our nation survived pretty well for a century and a half with almost no laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms by free persons. As recently as 1934 the federal government disguised the National Firearms Act as a tax mechanism because it was obvious at the time that they could not do otherwise and still claim that there was no infringement. There is no justification to believe that we cannot continue to survive without anti-gun laws.
It would certainly be a move in the right direction!
Once the US Supreme Court clears up the federal system, it would then be time to recognize that the "right" to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by anybody, including the states. The encouraging trend in concealed-carry laws has already resulted in both Vermont and Alaska not requiring permits. Incorporation of the Second Amendment would require that all states stop infringing the right to carry a concealed arm.
My $64,000 question--
Would it make any difference in how and where a restrictive Federal gun law would apply if the Second Amendment is incorporated versus unincorporated?