Please don't write on my thread any more until you tell me that you have read the Parker decision. Your comments remind me of the Dred Scott decision, which, believe it or not, was cited in Parker for recognizing the right to keep and bear arms in the territories. It was right in the particulars, but wrong overall. It was so wrong that we had the Civil War.
Well the Dred Scott decision seems bad looking at in a 21st century world but it wasn't a bad constitutional decision.
The constitution, to facilitate ratification, allowed slavery and did not intend to extend the right of citizenry to slaves. The court ruled accordingly.
This was resolved with the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments. Dred Scott was ruled upon 10 years before the passage of those amendments, however.
BTW, just wanted to add that the editorializing of the Dred Scott decision, "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect", was of course idiotic and not constitutionally relevant.
Please don't post any more threads until you've read Reinhart's decision in Silveira v Lockyer so you know what you're up against.