[publiusF27]

Once the second amendment is incorporated, there would be a challenge to some state concealed carry law brought before a liberal U.S. Supreme Court where they would rule "bear" does not include concealed carry. Like Kelo, this ruling would have no direct force on the states, but would send the message to all states that they had a green light to engage in this activity.

But some states already ban carrying weapons, some allow it, and some require a permit. I don't see how a ruling saying they can all continue to do what they're doing affects anything.

Or, similar to Parker (now Heller), a liberal U.S. Supreme Court could rule that handguns are not protected "arms" (as did the 7th Circuit in Quilici v Morton Grove). Again, no direct effect on the states, but it would open the door.

There's no door in the doorway now. It's already clear that handguns (or any other weapons) in the hands of the unorganized militia are not protected. You said so yourself.

If enough states started banning handguns, they could ask Congress to pass a law banning the interstate commerce of them -- similar to what Congress did before Prohibition with the Webb-Kenyon Act.

And the current interpretation by the majority of the federal courts today would not allow that to happen? Why not?

Given their record, having five justices defining the second amendment for every state and every citizen makes me uncomfortable.

It has already been defined, and it's meaningless to most citizens. I get a pointed stick, as you pointed out. No machine guns, the AWB was apparently OK, and how exactly are my handguns currently protected? I really fail to see how they could make matters worse.

[robertpaulsen]

"I don't see how a ruling saying they can all continue to do what they're doing affects anything."

True. As with the Kelo decision, nothing changes.

But, with Kelo decision, states, cities and municipalies nationwide now know that they can constitutionally seize private property and sell it to a private developer. Will they do that? Who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court says they can, and that troubles me.

"It's already clear that handguns (or any other weapons) in the hands of the unorganized militia are not protected. You said so yourself."

Not protected by the second amendment. Handguns are protected by state constitutions which use similar language.

So, for the highest court in the land to rule that "arms" do not include handguns, well, how will the states defend their laws when Sarah Brady and her bunch come-a-knockin'?

"And the current interpretation by the majority of the federal courts today would not allow that to happen? Why not?

First, any ruling by a federal circuit court only affects that circuit. Second, I'm not aware that any other circuit court has ruled that handguns aren't protected arms. Third, someone still needs to write a law prohibiting them, and there hasn't been a great rush to do so.

I'm saying that could change when the highest court rules and settles the ongoing controversy.

"I really fail to see how they could make matters."

Today, you can move to another state.