I thought you said I was correct that State gun laws interfere in an area delegated to Congress under Article I Sec. 8. How could they be constitutional?
One caveat -- if the nation is to live under the doctrine of inc., then, no, state gun laws are NOT legal.
And in your opinion, is the correct reading of the Constitution to incorporate the Second and apply it to the States?
Some BIG misunderstanding here. IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! congress were to enact a statute saying that all citizens had to be armed to be prepared for militia service or something like that, you'd have an interesting case. I know that there is a statute saying that all men between x and y ages are in the militia or something like that, but as far as I know there is no requirement to be armed.
Question 2: The whole doctrine of inc. is completely bogus, invented like much of sc law. IOW, the BOR still does NOT apply to the states. However, if the SC insists on saying that ANY part of the BOR applies to the states, then I DEMAND that the whole thing apply, most especially including the 2nd amend. But this is irrelevant -- the question before us is -- Was the BOR meant to apply to the states. Not --- does it apply now, after many changes and court cases.