[savedbygrace]

I don’t doubt that the Court would still try to infringe around the edges, but if it decides that the 2nd is incorporated, then the concepts of Heller will bring us closer to original intent than if they don’t agree to incorporate. IMO.

The strange thing about Scalia’s opinion in Heller is that he seems to agree that the 2nd is an individual right to KEEP arms, but not so much to BEAR arms. He would allow much more infringement of the bearing than of the keeping.

[Dead Corpse]

Close. What I read from Scalia's opinion is the same that Roscoe tried to wrongly use further up thread. You do not have a Right to commit any other crime, just because you are armed. There is no Second Amendment protection for armed robbery or armed sexual assault.

This is the only acceptable limit on "shall not be infringed". It's also why they have "keep and bear" in the Amendment.

Unlawful use of any tool is still unlawful. But, as Tommy J said, the unalienable Rights of man are only circumscribed by the equal Rights of others. Gun laws that forbid the carrying or mere ownership of arms are unlawful under our form of Government. At ANY level of government.

But this Right does not give you the power to take others property by force or act as judge, jury and executioner at your own discretion and just because you are armed.

That is the "fine line" distinction they are trying to preserve... IMO.