TexasCHLforum.com

This is a difficult question for those who argue that the Constitution is an immovable object.

The federal bill of rights was originally understood to apply only to the federal government, as made clear in the phrase, "Congress shall make no law..."

Some of the states had more ironclad bills of rights. Some had none, and some had elements like official state religions that we would consider unconstitutional today.

Only after the ratification of the 14th amendment did the Supreme Court begin to apply the federal bill of rights to the states. All except the 2nd and 3rd have been incorporated. The 3rd is pretty much moot, as no American government has attempted to quarter troops in private homes. This is the time for the 2nd to be incorporated.

Nobody should be chilling the champagne. Even if SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd (which I expect them to do), local governments will still be able to exercise the kind of ridiculous (IMO) police power that D.C. is currently doing.

The next battle, after this is won, will be reining in states' power to restrict weapons ownership, analogous to the way that SCOTUS limited states' power to restrict voting rights.

- Jim

The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow third-party audio recording or cameras (not even still cameras) during its proceedings. They produce audio recordings. In high-profile cases, those recordings are sometimes released the same day.

This site is fairly even-handed and obsessive about covering SCOTUS. However, the writing sometimes assumes a level of legal expertise that makes it difficult to understand: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are some other sites that are definitely pro-RKBA:
http://volokh.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://armsandthelaw.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the most important 2nd-amendment case in half a century. Either the 2nd is going to be incorporated on the states, or it never will be.

"Jul 6 2009 Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED. "

This is probably a reference to the amicus filing written by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and other attorneys general.

I don't know that VIDED means in SCOTUS jargon.

- Jim