SCOTUSblog - Analysis: state gun regulations and McDonald - The practical effect of incorporation [
"Today’s opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago means that for the first time, state and local governments’ gun regulations must comport with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right “to keep and bear Arms.” Although many state constitutions have a gun rights provision, McDonald has the potential to radically reshape non-federal firearms legislation. In this post, we discuss McDonald’s likely effect on some of the most significant pieces of non-federal firearms legislation. The description of existing firearms laws is drawn primarily from a 2008 reportpublished by the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV), which has a summary of firearms laws on its website..."
"While most state constitutions protect a right to keep and bear arms, state courts almost always deem state gun regulations “reasonable” and uphold them on that basis. In McDonald, the plurality stressed that its holding will not end “‘experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations.’” But it left undisturbed the Court’s strong suggestion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the D.C. guns case, that a more demanding test is appropriate..." [RESTOFPOST]