I don't know if they were trying to keep from giving it up, or if they're just leaving it to the Supreme Court to do that. As I understand it, and I'm FAR from being a lawyer, some rights in the Bill of Rights directly apply to states, but most don't.
�Although the Supreme Court has incorporated many clauses of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled Barron.� Nordyke III, 319 F.3d at 1193 n.3 (Gould, J., specially concurring). Therefore, the Second Amendment does not directly apply to the states.
In fact if they had come out and said it directly applies, might it might not have given pause to other courts below the SC level to accept this? Baby steps..
I'm STILL thrilled that they agreed with the part about the right preceding the Constitution. Page 11.
The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it. See, e.g., Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2797 (�[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.�).
If the right precedes the constitution, then even the constitution should have very limited ability to regulate it. No? Seems like a darned good point to bring up in all future cases, and puts a very heavy burden on the government for proof of the need to regulate.
