paul: really? once it s established as a right there s not much argument to say it doesn t apply to the states, that the individual rights can be abrogated by the states, only the people in the district of columbia have the right to own guns. in the future what regulations are acceptable, what is the content of the rights and liberals argue for a narrower interpretation. paul: sthat the way you see it? in the interesting of reviving the immunities clause. i think this created some skepticism among the conservatives on the court particularly justice scalia and chief justice roberts were rather leery of reviving the privileges and immunity clause even though most liberals and conservatives acknowledged it was wrongly decided, sort of wrongly erased, rather, way back in 1873. paul: well, justice scalia, i think, worries that if you do
has been used to incorporate most of the bill of rights and 2nd amendment is noticeably missing that from group and the other is a long sort of doorman clause called the privileges and immunities clause, something that a lot of libertarians have been very interested in seeing revised here in which this was a big opportunity to look at. paul: all right. there isn t much based on the oral argument i ve heard that would apply to the states. it would be odd given the fact that most of the rest of the bill of rights survive. and so that will happen. so, the five there was only a 5-4 vote in heller for the it was the liberals voted against making, declaring the right to bear arms, a fundamental right. well, what they did, they said it s an individual right and then they proceeded to argue it into a nullity. so the conservatives will apply to the states, the liberals, where do you think they ll come out. i think the same side.