The biggest point I think belercous misses is this IMHO:
The SCOTUS ruled in Heller, supra, that an individual, unconnected to a militia, can own a firearm for self defense purposes.
It was a close decision but that is now the law of the land. And Scalia wrote a very detailed explanation as to why that is now the law of the land.
There has never been a 2nd Amendment case heard by the SCOTUS addressing incorporation. And this is especially "brought home" when reading Heller.
Footnote 23, in Heller states:
“With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
I'm curious how anyone unbiased could read this footnote and still feel the Court will deny incorporation. This footnote begs for future litigation and the Court did accept the incorporation case VERY quickly.
Belercous has to remember that the States signed a contract to become part of the Union. Certain universal rights have to be honored by the States as part of this contract. Sure this is a double edged sword but I cannot think of a more basic, universal right than the right allowed in Heller (i.e., that an individual, unconnected with a militia, has the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes).
The Heller decision details why this individual right is fundamental and universal. Heller concludes this right precedes the constitution and has, for all intents and purposes, a life of its own based on my reading of Heller.
No it is not a "coin-toss" whether we win the incorporation case as belercous opines IMHO. It is a slam dunk IMHO. It may be a 5-4 decision but so be it.
I guess what I'm saying is belercous should read, and reread, Heller to gain a full understanding of how the 2nd Amendment is now interpreted by the highest court in the land. (His opinions seem to be based on arguments decided upon and rejected by Heller, supra, IMHO.)
By doing so, he will gain an understanding that the founding fathers clearly assumed, and wanted, individuals to have the unfettered right to own firearms to guard against tyranny, (i.e., whether it be tyranny from government intrusion or tyranny derived from lawlessness).