Here's a link to an article in the National Law Journal that analyses the arguments used before the Supreme Court in the gun rights case, McDonald v. Chicago.
The attempt to persuade the court to use the privileges and immunities clause as the legal reasoning behind the case apparently failed, so the due process clause was used instead. There's inside info here that I'm not privy to, but it seems that some of the justices are uncomfortable with extending rights to the state, but felt the need to in this second amendment case. Their task was to ensure they did not extend this right using an argument that might be applied elsewhere.
I may be wrong in my reasoning though.
This'll be a good read for my 2302s as we begin to discuss the judiciary following the break
