Do you really believe you have no right to armed self defense until 'incorporation' occurs?
Do you really believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only residents of Washington D.C. have an 'individual right to keep and bear arms'?
It's a never ending source of amazement to me that so many people think they GET THEIR RIGHTS from the Constitution or how the Constitution is interpreted by the SJC.
1) You will always lead yourself astray if you refer to a "right" unless you also ask or state, "against whom?"
2) Yes, the Founding Fathers most definitely intended the Bill of Rights to apply to, and to limit the powers of, only the then-new federal government. They had no fear of what they might do within their own states, but they were petrified of a bunch of people in other states, over whom they had no control and whom they could not vote out of office, taking action that would afffect them.
3) So let us get this loud and clear: the Second Amendment applies to, and limits the power of, the federal government. Only.
4) What "incorporation" will do (if it happens) is to include the substance of the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to, and limits the powers of, the states.
5) Now, for the question of "natural rights," that is to say, rights that inhere in an individual's mere existance, and do not depend on any specific grant of any governmental constitution:
A) Sticking, for the moment, to the issue of the individual versus the government, this notion is a wonderful conversation starter of no practical utility whatsoever.
i) As for the individual versus the federal government, the federal legislature has no general "police power," but only those legislative powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. So, for instance, one has a "right" not to have a generalized federal school zone ban, but only because such a ban depends on the general police power, and the federal legislature doesn't have such a power. It does, however, have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
ii) The states, on the other hand, do have general police powers, which means that they can enact any regulation or rule of conduct that is rationally related to maintaining an ordered society, so long as the enactment does not run afoul of some specific limitation on their legislative powers in either the federal or state constitutions.
B) Turning to the issue of one individual versus another individual, constitutions generally have no role in regulating individual relationships; their function is to set forth the structure, powers and limitations of a government.
C) In all events, there is no such thing as a "right" unless a court of competent jurisdiction is prepared to recognize and enforce it. So, yes, it is 100% true that one "gets" their "rights" from something (a constitution, a statute, or something else) "interpreted" by a court (be it the SJC or some other court). You are free to be amazed, if you like, but you cannot avoid or change this reality.
6) Putting it all together:
A) Where a person buys a condominium in which possession of firearms is forbidden, or where he agrees to be bound by rules promulgated from time to time by a unit owners' association without stated limitation, this is a matter of private action, not government action, to which the constitution has no application.
B) Prior to incorporation, a state could (consistent with the federal constitution at least) pass a statute outlawing the possession of firearms within a condominium (or any multiple occupancy dwelling), or a statute authorizing (but not requiring) a unit owners' association or landlord to ban firearms in such a dwelling.
C) Even in the absence of such a statute, and in the further absence of a statute banning such, an individual dedicating property to condominium has the legal power to ban firearms, or to authorize a unit owners' association to do so.
D) The most interesting question would be whether, after incorporation of some form of right to keep and bear arms into the Fourteenth Amendment, enforcement of such a
private ban might be construed to be an unconstitutional exercise of state power. My guess is not, but in all events, in the context of the present issue, that is the most you could get out of the federal Constitution.