[Seruzawa]

But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

So then we could reinstitute slavery in the District of Columbia? LOL! The depths that lefties go to justify their collectivist beliefs are amazing.

[Joe 6-pack]

"So then we could reinstitute slavery in the District of Columbia?"

And repeal women's suffrage, much to the dissenting justice's chagrin...

[Publius6961]

So then we could reinstitute slavery in the District of Columbia?

Well, that's silly, not all states had a significant number of slaves.
But I would think that rescinding the right to vote would be a good start.
The founders did not grant the den of thieves the privilege of voting for very good reasons.
Re-electing a conviced felon as mayor just verified it...

[longtermmemmory]

so now the majority opinion is an assertion of dicta but her MINORITY opinion which is all dicta is valid because .....?

[GrandEagle]

So then we could reinstitute slavery in the District of Columbia?

No - because that is specifically prohibited - I call your attention to the 13th amendment.

The bill of rights applies to those not residing in one of the States that are party to the agreement only to the point that they are called out. For example, the 13th amendment specifically states that slavery will not exist in any of the United States OR in any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The Constitution doesn't GRANT the citizens of our nation any rights (such as freedom of speech), it simply calls out a few rights that we already have to be off limits to any governmental interference. The Constitution is the document that lists the rights that "We the People" grant to the federal government. It also lists a few that "we" agree that the States give up - such as keeping warships.

[KAUAIBOUND]

Using the same logic in the majority opinion, i.e., the right to bear arms existed prior to the Constitution, and realizing that the District of Columnbia was once part of Virginia and Maryland prior to being created, then the right to bear arms still belongs to the residents of D.C. despite the fact it is not a state. The minority idiot judge was grasping at straws with her opinion, IMO.

[omnivore]

"But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State."

I wonder if she also would rule that the First Amendment doesn't apply in DC, "because it's not a state." And how would the press react when reporting such a decision.

[gleeaikin]

"Second Amendment's protections...do not extend to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

By her logic then the Amendment (I forget the number) that provides for an income tax should also not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. Oh joy, oh joy, DC residents should demand to get all the federal taxes they have paid over the years returned. Now they no longer have to be one of the highest taxed jurisdictions in the country!!!

[Jezebelle]

Well, what would really be helpful about her opinion would be that nobody in DC, including the media and the politicians, have a First Amendment right. :)

But seriously, I wonder if it occurred to her that, since there is a Circuit Court of Appeal in and for D.C.. and its purpose is in large part to decide constitutional issues for D.C., that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the people within the jurisdiction of her court. If not, there would be no need for her court, now would there? That aspect of her opinion is actually comical.

[Thunder90]

Then, in that lefties mind, NONE of the Bill of Rights would extend to the District of Columbia.