The Second Amendment and Incorporation: An Overview of Recent Appellate Cases

[Marlin T]

The Second Amendment and Incorporation:
An Overview of Recent Appellate Cases
Vivian S. Chu
Legislative Attorney
September 21, 2009

The Second Amendment and Incorporation
Congressional Research Service

Summary
The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an
individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia, and protects the right to
use that firearm for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The Court
conducted an extensive analysis of the Second Amendment to interpret its meaning, but the
decision left unanswered other significant constitutional questions, including the standard of
scrutiny that should be applied to laws regulating the possession and use of firearms, and whether
the Second Amendment applies to the states. Three federal appellate circuits have since addressed
whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Two of these circuits, the Second and
Seventh, both held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, whereas the Ninth
Circuit has initially held that the Second Amendment is applicable to the states, although a
rehearing en banc is scheduled and may affect that decision.
This report presents an overview of the principles of incorporation, the early Supreme Court cases
that addressed the application of the Second Amendment to state governments, and the federal
appellate cases that have addressed incorporation of the Second Amendment since the Heller
decision.

For the whole document, click this link.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40820.pdf

[Teejay9]

The 2nd Amendment should have been put to rest in 1865. The nation had just gone through a horrific Civil War. If the 2nd had referred to only government (state or federal) having guns, that would have been the perfect time to put an end to personal use. They could have argued that it was too dangerous for people to own their own guns because they could rise up and revolt against the powers that be. They didn't. Knowing more about the Constitution and the intent of the 2nd Amendment than today's gun-grabbing elite, Rebel soldiers were allowed to keep their guns. Others took them out West. They never even considered that the 2nd Amendment meant anything other than personal ownership. There was no records of s/ns kept, no coding of bullets, no interference or infringement at all. It took 20th century Liberal enlightenment to bring up this stupid argument. TJ

[Michael G]

Or you could say:
" It took taming the injuns, 6 lane highways, 2 ply toilet paper and t.v.dinners to reduce the testosterone level in a large majority of the American males.

[Teejay9]

Michael, I'm NOT saying that the 2nd should have been done away with, rather that the question about the 2nd was answered in 1865. They knew that people HAD the RIGHT to bear arms, or the amendment would have done away with it then. Perhaps I should have worded my response better. I'm not a moon beam treehugger. TJ