[donmeaker]

And furthermore, it should apply the 2nd Amendment to protect individuals from oppression by the states, using the 14th Amendment.

[robertpaulsen]

"it should apply the 2nd Amendment to protect individuals from oppression by the states"

Exactly. Just like the U.S. Supreme Court used the first amendment to protect us from hearing that boring political speech in the months preceeding an election. And isn't it wonderful that all states must allow nude dancing and flag burning because that IS protected speech.

Or how they protected us from those religious zealots who want to establish religion by keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or setting up a creche at Christmas Winter Holiday Season in the town square, or invoking God's name at high school commencement.

Yep. I think we can expect those same justices to expand our gun freedoms. There's no way they're going to rule that "keep" means keep in a state armory, or that "bear" does not mean concealed carry, or that "arms" do not include handguns.

No way.

[RamingtonStall]

REF: And furthermore, it should apply the 2nd Amendment to protect individuals from oppression by the states, using the 14th Amendment.

IF the Courts were doing their Jobs, NONE of the State Laws that abridge our RIGHTS to bear Arms would pass Constitutional Muster.

This is one of the reasons that I always Cringe when I hear people say that the courts should just "enforce the laws that are already on the books". In reality, the Feds and States should just enforce the CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS that are on the books.

RamS