A great day for freedom!!

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has struck down the city's ban on handgun ownership by its residents, as well as the law requiring owners of long guns (shotguns and rifles) to keep them either disassembled or locked at all times with a trigger lock. (It's kind of hard to use a weapon for home defense if it's in pieces. Robbers aren't known to go have a cup of coffee while the homeowner first assembles, then loads their self-defense weapon.)

What's interesting about the decision, which was on a 2-1 vote, was the dissenting opinion authored by Judge Karen Henderson:

"The meaning of the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia (District) is purely academic"

because:

"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."

In other words, since D.C. isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply. Tough luck, boys.

Well, Judge Henderson, what about the rest of the Amendments? Following your logic, none of the Bill of Rights, to say nothing of the rest of the Constitution, can be applied to anyone who lives in the District, since they don't live in a "state". Can police just seach D.C. resident's houses without a warrant, or lock them up for expressing an unpopular opinion, since they apparently are in a "twilight zone" of no rights? Even if you follow the tortured logic that the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is some sort of National Guard (it isn't, the Constitution was ratified in 1789, and the National Guard wasn't founded until 1903. The Federalist Papers make it very clear that the militia was the individual citizen), your position seems to be that D.C. and its residents have no inherent right to self-protection, whether by individual citizens or a self-formed group. I find it hard to believe that the Framers had that intention for the capital of their newly formed country, which was based on liberties and freedom.

I'm sure there are other great bits in the text, but it is 75 pages and I am not a lawyer. I will read it more carefully this weekend to see if there is anything else interesting in the decision to comment on.