Er... no. Sorry.
The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. Albert Gallatin
The writings in the Debates for ratification and the 1st Congress uphold the "protects individual Rights" interpretation. Art 6 Para 2 and Amendments 9/10 make it pretty clear that such infringements were not legal anywhere with the Union.
The individuals whose rights they sought to protect were State Citizens. No thought was given to those who might in the future be DC citizens.
"Art 6 Para 2 and Amendments 9/10 make it pretty clear that such infringements were not legal anywhere with the Union."
Amendment 9 refers to the people, but at that time State Citizens were The People. I am suggesting DC, not being a State, later attracting citizens of its own, is a place where its people are not considered The People. Further, the kind of citizens DC has is not the same kind the States has. DC's citizens are a degraded citizen, more like a subject. If you don't believe it a citation from 40 Cal 311 is on my about page.
Amendment 10:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
OK, again a restriction against the United States government in DC from usurping powers of States and their people. The United States government can take any action it wants against DC residents and citizens---there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that---DC is not a State, it is a federal district, and its occupants have no political power. The whole thing was designed this way.
This mentality that the bill of rights just protects everyone wherever they are is idealistic and nice, but we were warned there would be those who would try to separate us from our liberties, and they have done it. The DC residents are in bad enough situation but it is understandable considering where they live. The real abomination is that being geographically remote from DC doesn't matter anymore, everyone checks that box U.S. citizen and places himself under the jurisdiction of DC that wasn't meant to be any bigger than 100 square miles or a square 10 miles per side and lets lapse any real form of State Citizenship. It is this going into business for citizenship that Congress was able to do away with "in Pursuance thereof;" in Art 6 2nd paragraph. Now with evreyone a U.S. citizen, we all can be treated the way DC citizens are treated.