Anyone Deny That 2nd Amendment Will Be Incorporated ?

He means that on the basis of the due process provisions of the 14th amendment,
what he claims the second amendment means will be extended
to the states--that's what he means by incorporation.

This would involve the Supremes overturning previous statements
by the Court. In United States versus Cruikshank (1876) and
Presser versus Illinois (1886), the Court held that the second
amendment binds the Federal government (specifically, Congress),
but does not bind the states.

I personally don't see upon what basis this Court would overturn that-
-would "incorporate"

(new obsessive buzz word of the gun lobby, most of whom were
blissfully unaware of the concept until recently) the second amendment.

However, no where is a right of possessing firearms for self-defense mentioned in the constitution,
yet this Court claimed there was a basis for that in Heller.

So anything is possible. I would be amused to see someone
explain how states regulating firearms denies people the right of due process.

None of your comments about my posts establish that there is
a basis for "incorporation" to the extent that it would void the
power of the states to regulate firearms,

and you conspicuously fail to address the comment i made about
a passage in the majority opinion in Heller which states
explicitly that the decision cannot be construed as invalidating
other reasons for gun control legislation.

Furthermore, there is a real possibility that in the future,
the Court might reject the "logic" applied in Heller
as regards a right of self-defense which is superior to the right
of state or local authority to legislate in this matter.

Their references to historical precedents are flawed or disingenuous.

For example, they refer to Blackstone's Commentaries
to the effect that every Englishman has a right to arm himself--
but they notably omit Blackstone's full statement to the effect
that every English has the right to arm himself according to his
condition and degree, a principle antithetical to the concept
of the equality of citizens which is a basic principle in the United States.

I suggest that the conservative fanatics on this court have been
playing fast and loose with the truth in framing their opinion.

I see no reason to accept your ipse dixit claims here.

That the remarks about gun control legislation are obiter dictum
doesn't alter that the Court was expressing an opinion
about the value of gun control legislation,

at least in the specific instances to which it referred in the majority opinion.

It was not simply in the passage which regarded the statutes
of William and Mary that Blackstone made reference to the right
to bear arms subject to the condition and degree of the persons
bearing those arms--he does so elsewhere. It is also unrealistic
to refer to the legislative products of the "Glorious Revolution"
as a bill of rights--the enshrinement of privilege would be more
accurate. It was a monument of whiggery, and applied only to
those people who were adherents of the established church, and
with particular reference to propertied individuals who
practiced "low church" Anglicanism. In fact, the legislation to
which you refer specifically excludes from its provisions religious
dissenters, Catholics, Presbyterians and Jews. It also excludes
anyone who does not have property worth 20 pounds sterling per
annum or more.

What this Court has done is practice the sort of "legislating from the bench"

which conservatives have whined about when decisions which
they have seen as motivated by "liberalism" have been handed down.

There is every good reason to think that aspects of Heller
would be overturned in the future simply because it is not based
on any passages of the constitution, but rather on dubious
interpretations of legal commentary, for which it is not
reasonable to claim a universal agreement by scholars.

Thomas Colley, writing a commentary on the United States constitution in 1880 writes:

The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable
for the general defence of the community against invasion or
oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely
to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited. (emphasis added)

The members of the current Court at not the only one who can
play a game of quoting historical sources to uphold the points
of view which they wish to further.

Blackstone writes, entirely without any reference to legislation in the reign of William and Mary:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.

Please note his reference to "such as are allowed by law."
That is hardly a sound basis upon which to attack the concept of gun control legislation.

St. George Tucker, in reviewing Blackstone's commentaries in 1803 wrote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

Furthermore, in reviewing Blackstone's commentaries on game laws, Tucker wrote:

Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."

And Tucker goes on to note:

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Blackstone is a very weak reed upon which to build a case for unrestricted gun ownership.

Setanta wrote:

Which ones r those ?

Virtually every comment you've made.

Such as that the court did not comment on the value of other forms of gun control legisltaion currently in place; such as that the court will visit those issues seriatim, such as that you can speak for what "we" expect; such as that the gun lobby is "pro-freedom," and that inferential, those who favor gun control are opposed to freedom (examine again the difference between freedom and license).

Your comments about the mentally ill and felons, "et al" getting black market weapons is hardly germane to a discussion of what the Court will do. As for a snide remark about what is or isin't of historical interest, you brought the subject up, not i, with regard to the bases for the Court's jusical activism in Heller. If you advance something such as that in support of the ruling, i am entitled to challenge the validiity of the alleged historical precedents. It's just an attempt to weasel out of supporting your claim to now claim it is not revelant to the discussion of the topic of the thread.

The statement about judicial activism is not inconsistent with the fact, because the Court's duty, as defined in the constitution was never to determine the validity of the constitutionality of any law. That "power" springs from Marbury versus Madison and Mr. Justice Marshall's articulation of the implication of the power of the Court. The Court in this case has ruled without reference to the text of the constitution, instead relying upon allegations about historical precedence. That makes it judicial activism--legislating from the bench--and that makes it a fair target for dispure by anyone with knowledge of the texts to which it refers--such as Blackstone.

You ranting about whether nor "liberalism" is consistent with the "correct original principles" is not relevant. Your political prejudices are hardly to be considered universal truths.

If it makes you happy to live in your blood-soaked dreams of everyone on the street packing "heat," by all means, enjoy yourself.

I'm sure Mr. Justice Taney and his cronies sat around on a porch in Maryland somewhere, drinking their cold drinks and congratulating themselves that the laws regarding the "peculiar institution" would never again be challenged, never be successfully overturned after Dred Scott.

Unless you can demonstrate that the citation were of a universally held point of view, no, it doesn't make any difference.

While you're exercising your feeble powers of sarcasm,

consider that i said that it is possible that parts of Heller might be rejected
in the future, and not the entire ruling swept away--
although that is not unprecedented, and not impossible.