Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well, interestingly, the 2nd amendment never has gone through incorporation cases. 2nd Amendment cases making it to the Supreme Court are rare the most recent one that comes to mind prior to this is Miller in the 30s, which was in response to federal gun control in response to things like Dillinger.

I think thats about to change.

Let's say a state sets up a law which says, "as a requirement to own a handgun, you are required to volunteer an average of 12 hours per month in the state militia, said service will include gun safety and training, and emergency assistance."

I don't think this would fly. The amendment doesn't specify what militia it refers to. Requiring participation in a specific militia may not fly.

I'm going to give you one more thing to chew over on this topic, this was an even thinner decision than you may think. If you read the decision, Scalia's ruling reads not like a decision of the court, but as a dissent. Having spoken to a couple of my lawyer friends who have also read this, it was. Someone flipped.

If this were a known decision of the court, Roberts would have written it, not Captain Napalm, Tony Scalia, and you would not have two dissents with all the dissenting parties in agreement. You may still have two dissents, but you have some people on one, some people on another, some people on both, but you do not have 100% crossover. My guess on this is, the dissent was the winning side but someone backed off at the last minute, probably Kennedy, but maybe Alito or Roberts.

This one is beyond razor thin, and I don't think you're going to see this one extend, and it's likely if NRA tries to shove it through in Chicago or San Francisco which have less severe restrictions (no rifle restriction I'm aware of in Chicago, not sure if that's the same in SF) you may see the NRA go down like the Hindenburg.

RE: Supreme Court upholds 2nd Amendment [PDF]