S. 397, last year's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, has a neat jurisdictional clause. It appears to argue for the incorporation of the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment. Can Congress do this or only the Supreme Court? Anyway, here is the relevant language excerpted from the bill as passed: SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES. (a) Findings- Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. . . . (7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. . . . (b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows: . . . (3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment. Interesting in light of this recent Georgia Supreme Court case.