I said it applied, dumbass. It protects against federal infringement, dumbass.
Show me where the opinion says it protects individuals against state infringement. C'mon. You read it, right? Point it out or shut your trap already.
Yip, yip, yip. Like an annoying little dog.
Er... no. It protects against ANY infringement dumbass. Read the f*cking decision before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
Yes... you are yipping like an annoying little dog. Why you haven't gotten teh Zot yet for your trollish behavior is beyond the ken of mortal man....
Ahem. The DC Gun Ban is a local ordinance, not a Federal Law.
Dumbass.
L
Robert is correct that they didn't decide the incorporation question. If this case is affirmed by SCOTUS, it will make a national ban on arms impossible. It's also probable that such a decision would prohibit "legal in name only" restrictions, so it would likely prohibit a few harsh regs that made the right one only in theory as well. The question would then become whether something is merely a regulation or whether it has the practical effect of a gun ban. State laws would still be immediately valid under this scenario.
HOWEVER, contrary to what Robert assumes, I think it quite likely that if the SCOTUS says it is an individual (instead of collective) right against the federal government, then it will have no problem saying it applies to the states as well. The non-incorporation argument does not do well once one takes an individual rights approach against the federal government. In order to take the individual rights approach, the DC Circuit had to REJECT the militias argument.
What many anti-gunners fail to realize is that if you accept "we the people" and not "militias" in terms of the federal government, which is what the DC Circuit did here, then it makes it functionally equivalent to every other amendment in the BoR. Given the Court's history, incorporation would be almost a guarantee at that point.
This IS a big case for precisely that reason.