LA Times. Disagrees with individual rights reading of 2nd amendment, but pro incorporation

i can respect this as intellectually honest, even though i disagree with their anti-individual rights reading of the 2nd.

iow, they are saying that while they disagree with the conclusion of heller, GIVEN that decision, it should be incorporated, just like other amendments

"We were disappointed last year when the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, giving short shrift to the first part of the amendment, which refers to "a well-regulated militia." But we also believe the court has been right to use the doctrine of incorporation to bind states to the most important protections of the Bill of Rights. If those vital provisions are to be incorporated in the 14th Amendment, so should the right to keep and bear arms."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns10-2009jun10,0,4246160.story

thanks to volokh.com for the headsup.

I could argue that access to women's health services, including abortion, should be treated the same way - although SCOTUS has ruled that states can impose some limitations on abortion services, a woman has rights to privacy and access to adequate health care no matter which state she lives in.

abortions are legal in every state.

however, some states are more restrictive than others.

this is analogous to gun control. some states are "shall issue" , others aren't.

but assuming the incorporation of heller, no state will be able to have a DC'esque ban a la chicago

fwiw, my interpretation of the 2nd is that concealed carry (shall issue) is required by the 2nd. however, that is not the interpretation of the scotus.

Once Heller is established law with plenty of precedent and once incorporated it will be a next logical step.

Heller interestingly expanded the meaning of 2nd to include defense of self & home not just defense of state & community.

How does that limit stop at the edge of your property.

If you assume at some point justices agree that you have an right to defend you self and firearms are a protected method to do so....
then what logical basis limits your protection only to your home.

It doesn't.

However now is not the right time.

Simple straight forward cases are best to build a rock solid wall of precedent.

It took 40 years to whittle away RKBA until it somehow according to some on DU means "hunting". It will take at least a generation to build it back.

i was even thinking about using a "what about bob" baby steps reference.

great minds and all :)

you are right about the baby steps - did you guys see the thread on ccw reciprocity added to the matthew shepard legislation??

It doesn't force states to issue CCW but sure does make reciprocity a lot simpler.

One map for entire country only needs to be updated when a state adds or remove CCW program.