I'll tell you what -- if I were a DC politician and the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to people living in a non-state, I would immediately propose the following:
All newspaper content within the District of Columbia must be reviewed by the new Censorship Board.
All places of worship in DC must close immediately, with the exception of the Episcopalian Churches.
Police will be searching homes whenever they feel like it, and removing guns, and also inappropriate reading material.
I cannot believe that the Court will open up that can of worms.
“whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia”
The Supreme Court has already set its precedent under Grand Wizard Hugo Blackmun that the doctrine of “incorporation” means that the restrictions of the bill of rights applies not just to Congress but to the states.
I don’t care if DC is a non-state. Live by “incorporation”... etc.
Of course, my mistake here is to apply logical consistency to a leftist ideology and mindset. You have to think backwards when trying to figure out a leftist. Goal first - consistency of process be damned.
All newspaper content within the District of Columbia must be reviewed by the new Censorship Board.
All places of worship in DC must close immediately, with the exception of the Episcopalian Churches.
Police will be searching homes whenever they feel like it, and removing guns, and also inappropriate reading material.
I am certain that this very argument will be brought up by the attorneys arguing our side of this case. If the 2nd doeesn't apply in DC because it isn't a state, then neither do any of the other rights enshrined in and protected by the rest of the BOR.
IMHO, we will win this case - the USSC will state that the 2nd protects an individual right. No, this case isn't about incorporation, so we'll have to go through another case to have a ruling on that. No, it won't specify the limits of "reasonable regulation" (which I am sure will be part of the ruling), so we'll have to go through another case to have a ruling on that. No, it won't rule on the Constitutionality of the '86 full auto ban - though it'll give us the ideal tool to get it overturned in yet another case.
I'm cautiously optimistic. I can't see how they can rule the 2nd a "collective right" (whatever the eff such an animal may be), because to do so would make the rest of the rights mentioned in the BOR just as moot, based on the same reasoning. Even uber-lib Alan Dershowitz realizes this, and he's said that the Court needs to affirm that the 2nd protects an individual right so that the rest of the BOR means something.