The Fourteenth Ammendment was adopted precisely because the Southern States were denying Blacks the right to bear arms. That is a matter of historical record, and renders this court decision invalid on its face.
Bravo Sierra. The 14th was adopted to grant US citizenship to blacks - a right which had been denied since the Congress wrote the first Naturalization bill.
Historically the BoR was not extended to the states - Madison and Halimlton both argued thuisly, as did Chief Justice John Marshall in Barron v. City of Baltimore,
The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.The BoR was a limitation of the federal government, not the states, as evidenced by the Preamble to the BoR,
The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers [the federal government], that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
What?!?
Having read more of the Congressional Globe than I would have liked, I can't recall a single statement about constitutionalizing the right to bear arms as a goal of the 14th Amendment. In fact, debate over Section 1 of the amendment is pretty sparse--the general consensus is that it was meant to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866--which had already been debated ad nauseam, and again, I don't recall much (read: anything) about the right to bear arms in there.