[Ken H]

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.

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?

[William Tell]

Ken H said: "Would it make any difference in how and where a restrictive Federal gun law would apply if the Second Amendment is incorporated versus unincorporated?"

The answer, I think, is basically "no". What possible impact could a restraint on state law have on federal law. Indirectly, incorporation would involve clarification of the scope of the "right" in question and, since the federal government has had the arrogance to outlaw bayonet lugs, there is some hope that any clarification might bring about on overturning of such tyrannical laws.

The answer is "no".