No. If DC is not a State, then it is something else. And the something else it is, is a federal district.
"..and therefor most certainly beneficiaries of the Constitution and the BOR.
The seat of government was established by the Constitution. I wouldn't call that a benefit. The BOR, a true benefit to State Citizens, tells the federal government what it cannot do to State Citizens. Nothing is in it to protect DC citizens, who have little more than hope to protect their rights.
"And the 2A is very clear about what the citizens rights are."
There is not this monolithic homogeneous block of citizens. The 2A is very clear about what the [State] (there, fixed it) Citizens rights are. Unfortunately, it is silent about DC citizens, who are more like subjects if you read 40 Cal 311. Even more unfortunately, everyone outside DC buys into U.S. citizenship unaware that it makes them just like DC citizens except they don't live in DC. Then they wonder why the politcians are so awful, but this is why.
I usually leave a quote, here's a good one:
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different * from those he has under the other."
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
* Yes! Very different! To the point that DC citizens don't have the right to keep and bear arms except as a privilege at the pleasure of the people running DC. A real Citizen of a State has the RIGHT. But the State has to see him as a real Citizen and I don't know if they even do that any more, and I don't know if dual State Citizenship and U.S. citizenship will cut it, to sufficiently protect your rights, so overgrown has U.S. citizenship become.
BTW I don't mean to be difficult. I appreciate your replies and giving me the opportunity to dialogue with you. Although you disagree, you are polite and I appreciate that especially because some here call me nuts. I expect most don't read my post, the few who do shrug and dismiss it, I hope someone does read it and understand what I'm writing.
Isn't that what I said? "If DC is not a State, then they are a creature of the Federal Government".
Now, I can't find where the BoR is limited to Citizens of States, as it is a restraint on the FedGov against the rights of Citizens of the U.S. In my reading it also restrains those State governments who agree to become part of the U.S., since the legal contract known as the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different * from those he has under the other."
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Um, wasn't that the Jim Crow court that bent over backwards to find a way to agree that blacks could be denied their civil rights by State governments, especially 2A rights? Do you really want to hang your hat on that?
If you see that as legitimate jurisprudence, then the Constitution is little more than toilet paper, the legal contract is broken between the people and the government. Then it follows that the FedGov is no longer a legitimate entity and brute force, tyranny, is all that remains.