Second Amendment News
What boggles my mind, however, is this comment from the dissent (itself taken from an earlier case, Seegers v. Ashcroft): "the District of Columbia is not a state within the meaning of the Second Amendment and therefore the Second Amendment’s reach does not extend to it."
This statement ignores several key facts. Most importantly, it assumes that the Court has incorporated the Second Amendment through the application of the 14th Amendment, so as to apply its provisions to the states. The Court has never done this, but has rather held on several occasions that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms is NOT covered by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. (Of course, one could argue, as an even more fundamental point, that the entire incorporation doctrine itself is bunk -- but that's another discussion). So, saying that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the District of Columbia because it's not a state is pointless -- the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to the District even if it were a state.
In fact, the status of the District of Columbia as Federal territory, and its NOT being a state, is what causes the Second Amendment to apply there. The Bill of Rights, along with the rest of the Constitution, binds first and foremost the Federal government. Congress lacks the authority to prohibit the bearing of arms. Yet the District of Columbia's administration, which Congress created and vested with powers, believes that it can. From where has it received such power? Congressus non supplet quod Congressus non habet (to adapt a phrase).
The case is Parker, et al v. District of Columbia.