[robertpaulsen]

"No, you misunderstood. I think it might be declared that the 2a protects a fundamental right, and it might be incorporated and used against state gun control laws, and I really don’t see what would be so bad about that."

Ah. Then I did misunderstand.

As to "what's so bad about that", it's what I brought up before. I'm concerned how the U.S. Supreme Court will interpret "keep", "bear", and "arms" and what they will consider to be an infringement.

If some State Supreme Court or even some Federal Appellate Court makes a screwy ruling, the damage is limited. Another "penumba of an emanation" ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the second amendment would affect everyone.

"To ask the question another way, when was the last time someone successfully mounted a 2A challenge to any law?"

Nunn v. The State of Georgia, 1846, is the only one I'm aware of.

[publiusF27]

I'm concerned how the U.S. Supreme Court will interpret "keep", "bear", and "arms" and what they will consider to be an infringement.

No firearms law since 1846 has been considered an infringement, and we've got some burdensome and screwy laws in some places. I don't see how second amendment protection can get any weaker in terms of the kinds of laws that are allowed. I can certainly see how it could get better, or the current state of affairs could be ratified by the court. That would be bad, but in practice would change nothing, since the current state of affairs exists anyway.

There have been calls in Congress for the renewal of the AWB. Just because it expired does not mean it can't come back, but a favorable ruling from the SC might well mean that.