[packrat01]

But that case stated baldly that "the right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution" a statement that's rather hard to square with the Second Amendment,

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights. DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District... No different than barring weapons from an Army post.

[joesnuffy]

The Right to Self Defense is conferred upon man by His Creator imo
The State may affirm this right but it cannot confer...it may also take away this right if it can.

[CJ Wolf]

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights. DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District... "No different than barring weapons from an Army post."

....Except that I can not go buy a townhouse on an Army Post. Except that Criminals don't wander around selling crack and shooting kids raping and killing women in the army post parks. Except that most army posts aren't considered the murder capital of the world at times. Except that an Army post is not a City. Except that a Army post generally has nobody living on it except Army personel and possible family.

The feds need to be restricted not the citizens.

[norton]

I don't believe it is "the feds" who decided to do away with firearms in DC; it's the historically leftist & race based elected city administration that acts under separate rules and limits imposed by the feds...

[coloradan]

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights.

Correct, it recognizes them.

DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District.

Wrong ... as it stands, unless an article has been officially incorporated by the 14th amendment, it ONLY applies to the federal government. "The Second Amendment only stays the hand of the federal government..." If anything, states could enact gun control but Washington DC can't, though I happen to believe that states can't legally either, because the Bill of Rights was meant to be incorporated in full. (What is the purpose of recognizing a right in writing that you think and intend the States to violate?)

[Redbob]

"No different than barring weapons from an Army post."

Wrongo!
The inhabitants of an Army base are by-and-large, members of the military, and they've pretty much surrendered their Constitutional rights for the duration of their enlistment, but this isn't the case for the residents of and visitors to the District of Columbia.

But unless the DOJ "prosecutes" the accused violators, there will be no trial, and no opinion for the Supreme Court to consider.