"The court in D.C. v. Heller erred in finding an individual right in the Second Amendment, but it would also err in not applying this to the states via Fourteenth Amendment incorporation", goes the argument by the the L.A. Times's editorial writers.
I expect such subtlety from The Economist, perhaps, but not even from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or Chicago Tribune; it's thus surprising and somewhat refreshing to see it in the L.A. Times. Its readers would do well to learn from the example: "Is it Constitutional" is a wholly different question from "Do I like the consequences?"
Damon Root, writing for Reason, has given a brief but thorough argument for incorporation. Please point me to law review articles if you find them.
The seven forbidden words?
9 hours ago