I hate that one. Has no one ever read the actual TEXT of the legislation that was passed around to the States for ratification?
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
It states right in the article that once ratified it is "as part of the said Constitution". How much more clear does it need to be? Untold decades of government stupidity could have been avoided if just ONE court had bothered to read it's own damn documentation.
Art 6 para 2 states clearly...
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This doesn't require a law degree to understand. It doesn't require some black robed judge to interpret this for us lowly peons.
Past due time to put the genie back into the bottle.
I certainly don't like the "selective incorporation" term used to describe the glacially slow fashion in which the Supreme Court has been restricting the power of the various states to infringe our rights. The Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that we have "immunities" which are a consequence of being United States citizens and I believe that the Second Amendment provides an immunity from infringement.
But I am not so convinced that our Founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply against the state governments. Certainly the freedom of speech protected in the First Amendment was a protection only against laws passed by Congress. I don't know how clear it is that there was no state which had any intention to infringe the right to keep and bear arms at the time of the Founding. But certainly the Fourteenth Amendment changed the situation to bar disarming of the people by the states.