"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."
This is a Federal judge? Another collectivist idiot.
This isn't a "states rights" issue it's an INDIVIDUAL rights issue. And last time I checked, DC is in the USA.
Technically it is. At times, I'm not sure.
So, if an amendment to the Constitution, which has been part of the Constitution for a long time by definition, does not apply to the area of DC.....how is it that the Constitution that is supposed to function as the foundation of the government IN DC? (supposedly, I know!)
That's what I was thinking.
If DC isn't covered by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, then they aren't covered by any other Amendments to the US Constitution either.
using the judges logic.
Inalienable rights do not exist in Washington DC. Only those confered by her black robed bretheren.