Speaking of footnote dicta, in his decision in Heller, Justice Scalia noted on p 47 that United States v. Cruikshank held that that "the Second Amendment does not by its own force
apply to anyone other than the Federal Government." Then on p. 48, at note 23,
Scalia emphasizes that 14th Amendment incorporation is NOT an issue in Heller, while also noticing that "Our later decisions (citations omitted) reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government."

Heller involved a DC gun law. Miller involved a federal law. So what happens when a state law is challenged based on Heller?

hadn't noticed this; good catch. Don't have the skill set to explore this; hopefully other posters will clarify.

That is indeed a very open question. Precedent from the Slaughterhouse era is more than a bit suspect, and the Supreme Court has said nothing on the specific issue of the 2nd Amendment since the inception of the incorporation doctrine - just that some, but not all, of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights apply to states.

I expect the NRA will try very hard to get such a case before the Supreme Court before any of the Heller majority retire.

For my part, I don't see how anyone could conceivably justify applying the fairy dust, cobwebs, and penumbrae from which Roe was spun to the states while not applying an explictly stated substantive right.

My impression would be that the fight will continue to rid us of Draconian gun restrictions in all the cities, not just DC even after the Heller decision's emphasis that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government and there are no Fourteenth Amendment issues involved. The fact that no such issues were involved in this case does not prevent their examination at a later date. While the holding in this case was quite narrow, it did state that there was a right retained by individuals to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful uses. I can't help but grin as I type that. So, that leaves absolute federal prohibition of entire classes of firearms out of the question, although I would have liked to see "specific types of dangerous weapons" defined as what is covered by the National Firearms Act as I really like my HK-91 and Romanian semi-auto AK clone and don't feel like enduring the Clinton years again. And I get the idea that now that we have an individual right enforceable against the Federal Government, that it will also be enforceable against the states in some form or fashion. It probably won't strike down some state "assault weapons" bans (see, isn't that clever how they insert the name of a criminal act into the label for the gun, makes it seem that much scarier), but it will probably do away with blanket bans on handguns outside the District, most notably in Morton Grove, IL, Chicago, and other suburbs of Daley's Den of Corruption and Graft. Most of the litigation will no doubt center on the meaning of "reasonable restriction". I imagine that for all the bedwetting that goes on for the rest of the two week news cycle about full blown, Bahgdad-style street warfare, that very little will change. Liberals will still have their gun control, but it will never again be able to extend into complete prohibitions of entire classes of guns.

As for automatic weapons, the NFA is less the problem than the '86 ban on import and manufacture of new ones. Unless you're richer than most of us, the permit, registration, and $200 tax for buying one are dwarfed by the $10k or so you'll pay for a civilian-legal Uzi or AK. It would be interesting to see that come before this court, but my gut feeling is that Kennedy would be hard to persuade to ditch it.

The NFA itself is probably ironclad, although it would be nice to see the option for states and localities to enforce de facto total bans (by sitting on applications indefinitely or rejecting them without giving a reason, which the NFA allows them to do) struck down as violating the 2nd.

The sad thing is it's so unnecessary. The number of crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons since the NFA took effect is miniscule, even including guns stolen from legal civilian owners. No criminal is going to get through that licensing regime or want to attract the law enforcement attention he'd get just by applying, and the trouble it takes to go through it screens out casual (thus more likely to be careless) buyers. I have never met an owner of a Class III weapon who wasn't a law-abiding and responsible shooter.

TheyCallMeBruce:

...

The sad thing is it's so unnecessary. The number of crimes committed with legally-owned automatic weapons since the NFA took effect is miniscule, even including guns stolen from legal civilian owners. ...

Sounds like the NFA is working very well then. Thank you for confirming that gun control works well.