Question: Which Supreme Court case addressed more Amendments of the US Constitution, District of Columbia v. Heller or Gibbons v. Ogden?

Context articles: United States v. Sprague
Robert A. Levy
Clayton Cramer
35 Bar &amp; Grille LLC v. City of San Antonio
Gibbons v. Ogden
Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co.
Stephen Halbrook
Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority
District of Columbia v. Heller

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the Fifth Article of the US Constitution.
 The defendants had been indicted under the National Prohibition Act and were attempting to quash their indictments, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified.
 Their reasoning was that the Congress of the United States had chosen to ratify it by usage of state legislatures instead of constitutional conventions.
 If this were held true, Congress would have exceeded its authority in passing the NPA.
 The court did not agree, however, ruling that the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to determine the method used in ratifying amendments.
 In part, Article Five states that any amendment "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, "as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"" (emphasis added).
 Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' claim that the Eighteenth Amendment needed to be ratified by state conventions since "all [previous amendments] save the Eighteenth dealt solely with governmental means and machinery rather than with the rights of the individual citizen."
 The Constitution does not make a difference between types of amendments, the court held, so the amendment, "by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution."
Robert A. Levy (born 1941 in Washington, DC) is the chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute and the organizer and financier behind "District of Columbia v. Heller", the Supreme Court Case that established the Second Amendment as affirming an individual right to gun ownership.
 He is a Cato senior fellow and an author and pundit.
 Before becoming a lawyer, he was the founder and CEO of CDA Investment Technologies.
Clayton E. Cramer is an American historian, author, gun enthusiast, and software engineer.
 He played an important early role in documenting errors in the book "" by Michael A. Bellesiles, a book that was later proven to be based on fraudulent research.
 His work was cited by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in "United States v. Emerson", 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex.
 1999).
 His research also informed the Supreme Court decision in the seminal Second Amendment cases "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago".
 He holds an MA in history from Sonoma State University.
 He currently resides in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, near Boise.
35 Bar and Grille LLC, et al. v.
 The City of San Antonio was a court case in U.S. District court.
 The case addressed a city ordinance about the amount of bodily coverage needed by semi-nude dancers in San Antonio, Texas.
 The case reached notoriety in international press when the press discovered that Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery's April 29, 2013 order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction was full of puns and double entendres about stripping and sexuality.
 During its press coverage, the case was also known by the humorous title applied to the judge's opinion of the case, The Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Bikini Top v The (More) Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Pastie (a reference to the song "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini").
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.
 The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time.
 Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of Columbia city council on September 24, 1976.
 The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976.
 The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"; this was deemed to be a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.
 On June 26, 2008, in the historic case of "District of Columbia v. Heller", the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the ban and trigger lock provisions violate the Second Amendment.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co.
 Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case which began on April 30, 1953 over the validity of the local Washington Acts of 1872 and 1873.
 The Acts prohibited segregation in public places within the District.
 With the court’s support, the legal ramifications of the 1872 and 1873 Acts could once again be enforced.
 The case transpired during growing racial tension in the nation’s capital.
 Throughout Washington, the black community had grown tired of unfair treatment regarding housing, businesses, and education.
 But, change came soon enough through the courts.
 On June 8, 1953, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the segregating policies practiced by Thompson’s Cafeteria were illegal, marking a huge victory for the national black community.
Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
 He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).
 He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".
 He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".
 In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.
 More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.
 He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").
 He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.
 Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.
 The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment.
Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority is a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association the day after the United States Supreme Court decided in "District of Columbia v. Heller" that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use.
 The complaint against San Francisco challenges the city's ban of guns in public housing.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.
 Due to Washington, D.C.
's special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (2010) in which it was found that they are.
 It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.