Heller was a case arising from the District of Columbia. I read the majority opinion very carefully, and I did not see any discussion or holding regarding whether or not the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms was a "fundamental right". Only those "fundamental" rights in the Bill of Rights are incorporated into the 14th Amendedment's due process clause and made applicable against the states as well. For example, the 5th Amendment's right against self-incrimination has been incorporated and enforced against the states; the 7th Amendment's right to trial by jury in a civil case has not.

Absent incorporation, the Bill of Rights amendments apply to only Congress, not the states.

It is possible, now that the NRA plans on challenging several other jurisdictions' gun laws, that the Supreme Court may hold that, notwithstanding the fact the Heller defined the right to keep and bear arms as a personal right, that right is not fundamental, is not incorporated into the 14th amendment, therefore is not exercisable against the States, and that, therefore, a State may enact a ban similar to the DC ban struck down in Heller.

Yet, by enumerating an individual right to keep and bear arms into a federal legislative document, does that not preclude the states from holding jurisdiction over firearms legislation?

It is enumerated to the federal government to defend that individual right, and hence, not within state or municipal jurisdiction.

Wow, Mr Donner, you really had to take the scenic route to arrive at that destination, didn't you? Too bad those nine illuminated ignorati in DC don't share your comprehensive knowledge of the application of the Constitution to the laws of the nation, maybe they could have avoided making this decision altogether. Perhaps you should call them up and explain to them their folly, and leave them your phone number so that they can call you up for pointers and advice next time they get confused. Silly judges.

In the incorporation issue the mystery of the prefatory clause lives on. OK, so it’s now settled that the prefatory clause was explanatory rather than restrictive all along; but still, the history of the right is tied up—dare I say inextricably intertwined?—in the idea of a secure free state. How does such a free state maintain its security? Through its police powers. So why would the 2nd Amendment guarantee a free state the right to maintain security through its police powers while simultaneously preventing that same free state from exercising those same powers?

As if the Constitution said, “Here, States, we give you a Right. You’re welcome. But now you need to understand that this Right carries with it an inferred inability for you to enjoy it.”

That makes no sense. It's an individual right now. We can stop arguing about that. But does that mean that it's no longer a right of the state as well?

And so what does the future of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence hold? My prediction: the Court will allow states to regulate guns unless a specific measure infringes on the right of self defense. That will only open the door to about a thousand cases about what weapons are necessary for self-defense and about how small of a gun cabinet Scalia has limited himself to with his odd treatise on the convenience and popularity of the good old all-American handgun and then finally about the extent to which a specific measure does or does not unreasonably infringe on a citizen’s ability to protect his castle.

And the next NRA bumper sticker will read: When RPG’s are outlawed, only outlaws will have RPG’s.

I'm not sure I understand your point. My point is this:

a. The Bill of Rights originally applied to limit the power of the federal Congress ("Congress shall make no law . . . "). The Bill of Rights originally put no limitations on the states.

b. Washington DC (from where this case originated) is a federal enclave, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Congress (nothwithstanding the fact the Congress has granted Washington DC extensive home-rule powers).

c. From an enforcement-of-the-Bill-of-Rig­hts standpoint, it makes a huge constitutional difference if it is a federal enclave (Washington DC) or a state that violates a 2nd Amendment right. Clearly, the 2nd amendment applies to the federal Congress. The 2nd amendment would apply against the states only if the 2nd amendment right is deemed so fundamental that it is incorporated into the due process clause of the 14th amendment. There was no language in Heller that discussed this issue, because it was not before the Court.

So, the only point I was trying to make was that it is still an open question as to whether this new "personal right" is enforceable against the states.

The right is federally enumerated. Therefore, any state that is part of this larger federal body is forced to yield to federal jurisdiction. That DC is not a state only bolsters the agrument that it must follow federally-mandated laws.

KevDurden:

The right is federally enumerated. Therefore, any state that is part of this larger federal body is forced to yield to federal jurisdiction. That DC is not a state only bolsters the agrument that it must follow federally-mandated laws.

Well, that's not strictly true, at least not from an academic standpoint. What you have to understand is that, prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was understood to be only a limitation on the Federal government. You could not go into court and ask to have your State be forced to do/stop doing something on the ground that it violated some part of the Federal Constitution. (Of course, most if not all States had their own Consitutions, which generally mirrored the Federal one - but if Pennsylvania wanted to quarter militia troops in your guest house, it was free to do so. More realistically, Pennsylvania and Federal courts to this day differ on the number of jurors required in (at least civil) jury trials. There are other differences as well - how we elect our legislators, how we select judges and heads of executive departments, what kinds of taxation are Constitutional, etc.).

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted,which says, in essence, that no State can deprive its citizens of fundamental federal rights. And over time, much of the Federal Bill of Rights has been extended by the Supreme Court to be enforceable against the States. This is done on a case-by-case basis, and it is called "the incorporation doctrine."

It seems pretty clear to me that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment by the activist Scalia is going to be deemed a "fundamental" right that States can't interfere with.

But asking the question, today, whether it will in fact be incorporated into the 14th Amendment is not frivolous, since it has not yet been done, and there is actually some language in an old Supreme Court case (Cruikshank?) that suggests it should not be. But as I recall, Cruikshank (or whatever the case was) was decided either very early in the development of the incorporation doctrine, or perhaps even before the 14th Amendment was adopted.