"Your own link makes note that selective incorporation doesn't apply to the bill of rights."
No, it doesn't. In fact, it clearly states the opposite noting that the 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights have not been incorporated.
On that page you can even find a table noting when each amendment in the Bill of Rights was incorporated. It quite clearly tells you that the 2nd amendment was incorporated in 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The LII is literally just an accessible form of the various federal codes, statutes, regulations, and certain administrative rulings. It can be verified against paper copies or against paid services like Westlaw and Nexis.
The LII has been around for more than a decade. The LII is used by progressives, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, the current (Trump) administration and the former (Obama) administration, all with no complaints. It has been used by lawyers and judges on every side of the aisle. If there was any bias, it would have come out by now.
Respectfully, I think you should take a breath and re-read the comments to which you’re responding. I’m as big a supporter of the RKBA as you’ll find, and I didn’t read anything “anti-gun” into them.
This discussion is around the incorporation doctrine, not the Second Amendment.
As I recall, Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right, while McDonald v. Chicago established that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendemnt’s “Due Process” clause.
>Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right
Yes. Well, it always an individual right 250 years of clear examples in texts, but a lot of people tried "the militia argument" which was funny because "a well regulated militia" was immediately followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The idea was that antigun people claimed the militia was an official organization like the modern national guard and not the reality of militias which includes any able bodied person able to fight for defense of state and self. Like you and me.
Heller was "the case" the ended the "collective rights" nonsense argument. The SCOTUS case that means the federal government has no power to keep people from bearing arms. All McDonald wanted to do was keep a gun on him outside of his house and IL/Chicago refused to issue permits - the easy way to see the difference is Heller was the people's right, McDonald just clarified it means outside of your home.
That is not a correct summary of the cases. Here is the final paragraph from the majority opinion in McDonald:
"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. It is so ordered."
> if ANYTHING it would have been incorporated federally
> incorporated federally
From Wikipedia:
> Incorporation […] is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states.
You seem to be operating outside of your area of expertise. There is no such thing as "federal incorporation" because the Constitution already applies to the federal government.
I recommend reading (at least the very end of) the majority opinion in McDonald before making any further arguments about which case established what.
