“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals ..."
This is a firm affirmation that individuals have a Second amendment right and it is not limited to specific groups or 'collectives'. The second part of the question,
"... who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”,
merely identifies which group of people are being targeted by the obnoxious DC law and whether as a consequence of that targeting, may have been denied those rights.
OTOH, if the SC wanted to signal a willingness to consider a collective right, then the question might have been phrased this way:
Do individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes, have Second Amendment rights which are violated by the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02?"
Nicely put.
It is peculiar, because a plain reading would indicate that perhaps the Court is implying that people who are affiliated with state-regulated militias might not have individual rights under the Second Amendment. While this might be a valid argument, in my view, not even I think this is where the Court is heading.
Very well put...
I completely agree with your post in 128. I think you have the advantage over me of being much more capable of expressing your thoughts with words.
Best,
3