[robertpaulsen]

"Why would it be so terrible if we could attack state laws as infringements on the 2A?"

It's not the attack. It's the result.

My point is that in 10 out of the 12 circuits you're attacking gun laws where the appellate courts are not friendly. They're going to rule against you.

Yes, you're no worse off. But now that Circuit Court is on record for that gun issue, and the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take that into consideration in the future when they make their decision on that issue.

"If I live in one of the ten, I'm already living under a collective/militia interpretation, meaning things really can't get worse."

Those ten had no say on the concealed carry issue. Those were state decisions, not federal.

But once incorporated, those concealed carry laws can be challenged in federal court.

[publiusF27]

But once incorporated, those concealed carry laws can be challenged in federal court.

We might lose the argument that they are protected under the 2A, but how could state concealed carry laws suffer beyond that from 2A incorporation? The 2A says nothing that could be used to prohibit states from allowing concealed carry, and I don't see how even the most creative court could find that state concealed carry laws violate the 2A. How would a state CWP law be challenged under an incorporated 2A? The only possible challenge I can think of would be one saying concealed carry is none of the state's business, and we should be allowed to carry concealed with no permit, as in Vermont.

Use my state as an example. What exactly might happen to Florida's CWP laws under your scenario? How would it get challenged, on what basis, and what might happen to jeopardize our laws?