[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "My guess is that the P&I to which the court was referring dealt with the P&I of each state."

Perhaps.

Here is the quote from the decision:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. A reasonable person might attach to the reference to "keep and bear arms" the same limitation expressed in the phrase "upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak" but such a limitation is not explicit.

Here now is is the relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; To suggest that the "immunities" of citizens of the United States do not include protection from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is to ignore the Second Amendment. Your "Even if" in a posting above has allowed you to remain non-committal with respect to this very important part of the Bill of Rights.

IF there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, as referred to in the Second Amendment, and IF citizens of the United States are immune to federal infringement of such right, and IF such immunity is among the "privileges and immunities" referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment, THEN why does my right to keep and bear arms depend in any way on the Constitution of California?

[RKV]

Sorry for the repitition WT, we posted within a minute or so of each other.

[robertpaulsen]

It was thought that the U.S. Constitution BOR would be selectively incorporated under the P&I Clause of the 14th amendment. The USSC surprised everyone and used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment instead. Why? I don't know.

"IF there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, as referred to in the Second Amendment, and IF citizens of the United States are immune to federal infringement of such right, and IF such immunity is among the "privileges and immunities" due process (my guess is that the second amendment would be incorporated under this clause, not P&I) referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment, THEN why does my right to keep and bear arms depend in any way on the Constitution of California?"

At that point it wouldn't, since now the federal government and the USSC are defining the meaning of the second amendment, and the Supremacy Clause is in effect.