DC: The 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply ...

Interesting constitutional argument proposed by the DC Attorneys in their Weasel-worded attempt to squirm out from under the SCOTUS ruling on Municipal Gun Control:

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment's provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms apply only to the federal government, not the 50 states and the District of Columbia, lawyers for the nation's capital argued Friday in a written brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pay careful attention here, because this sentence is subject to mis-reading:

The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia. In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.

When I first read this, I understood it to say that the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution only applied to Federal legislation, and that States were not bound by the terms of the Constitution.

This would imply that the Federal government was bound by constitutional restrictions, but States (and the District of Columbia) could impose laws which were Unconstitutional if the Federal Government had imposed them.

The next two sentences seemed to support that argument:

As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.
"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."

You may think: "Oh damn, they got us there!". But the Constitutional restrictions are binding upon the States, under Article IV of the Constitution of the United States:

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

...

But D.C. erred in that it not only applied its argument solely to the 2nd Amendment, but also argued that the District of Columbia was not a "State", and as a 'special case' it was accorded 'special status'.

The district argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia.

In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers' concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias.

As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue.

"The primary goal of those who demanded (the Bill of Rights) as a condition of ratification to the Constitution was to control the federal government," the lawyers wrote. "That is especially true with respect to the inclusion of the Second Amendment."

This interpretation has been described as "... very creative but wrong."

How likely is this argument to be taken seriously?

Because the case addresses not only the Second Amendment but also the peculiar status of the District of Columbia as a federal enclave, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court ruling will have a direct impact on the national gun-control issue.

In other words ... nice legal position, Washington Weasels; but ultimately indefensible.