You're right: If the DC Circuit Court is upheld, then the next battle will turn on whether the Second Amendment applies to the States via the 14th Amendment. Then the battle will turn to the limits, if any, upon the governent's ability to regulate the fundemental right of gun ownership even though the Second Amendment (like the First Amendment) is absolute and without exception. Thus, the issue will become whether the states can regulate gun ownership to achieve a compelling state interest and if so, whether the regulation before the court is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
cockroaches..... liberals, and lawyers......
Hand me the DDT....
Actually, there ARE limits to the First Amendment ("yelling "fire" in a crowded theater"). And throughout the history of the United States, it has been understood that states can remove the firearms ownership rights of convicted felons-though that limitation used to be only for the duration of the sentence, while now it is essentially "forever".
I suspect a multi year dance, and we’ll end up right where we are now. Status quo.
This passes the SCOTUS, it'll be used by the defense in every firearms persecution case going on around the Country.
The SCOTUS has the opportunity to be heroic here and do the right thing by upholding an individual Rights position here. It would go a long way towards restoring the protections the Founders wanted in place for our Rights as Citizens of the Nation.
The Parker case concerns the right of DC residents to possess functional firearms in the home for self defense.
"Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as “functional firearms,” by which they mean ones that could be “readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary” for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District’s authority per se to require the registration of firearms."
I am anticipating that the U.S. Supreme Court will use parts of the following in their decision. Look for it.
The U.S. Supreme Court will rule that the second amendment is a limitation only on the federal government and that it protects a fundamental individual right of citizens to keep and bear those arms which have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated state militia (US v Miller). It is up to each state, under that state's constitution, to define those "arms" and to determine what state regulations or restrictions would apply to those arms.
Washington, DC is not a state, nor does it have a "state" militia. Yet its residents cannot be totally disarmed by the federal government, no more than a state government can totally disarm it's citizens -- this would leave the country with no organized protection other than federal troops, something the Founders feared.
The federal government's current laws covering Washington DC's residents go beyond the strict scutiny limitations of a fundamental right -- though there may be a compelling government interest for the DC laws, they are not narrowly tailored to that purpose.
2A has to apply to states. The wording is not like the other nine. It does not say “Congress shall make no law...”, it says “...shall not be infringed.” It leaves no leeway here. No one within the jurisdiction of the Constitution is allowed to infringe.