[GunRunner]

The public purpose is defined as something a legitimate public entity defines it as. If they get out of hand, it’s up to the citizens of that particular locality to throw the bums out, not for nine men in black robes to decide what’s a “true” public purpose or not.

You don't seem to understand how the Constitution works.

It is not up to local governments to interpret the Bill of Rights as they see fit, and have local citizens decide what they want the Fifth Amendment to say. By this logic, each individual locality could decide what "the right to keep and bear arms" means, or set their own free speech and freedom of religion limits, just as long as they don't "get out of hand".

The Fifth Amendment has been part of the Incorporation Doctrine since the 1890s.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

All of that does happen. Local gun control laws differ dramatically. Localities differ about how they handle free speech — protest permits for example, much easier some places than others. Some places are OK with expressions of freedom in the public square, others not as much. We’ve generally argued that the fact that San Francisco doesn’t want prayer in the schools or Nativity scenes on the City Hall lawn shouldn’t preclude Mobile from doing so. The Fifth Amendment requires that there be a public use. Localities can differ on how they define public use, but so long as a duly elected group makes a reasonable case that they are seeking to put the property to public use (and just compensation is paid), then the Supreme Court approves it. Always has.