[piytar]

But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

By that reasoning, none of the other Constitutional protections apply to the residents of DC. You know, things such as Due Process, Free Speech, and all that stuff.

To the Judge: The Constitution applies to the federal government first, and the states only through incorporation. The District of Columbia is technically not part of any state, but rather a creature of federal law. Ergo, the Second Amendment applies to DC even more clearly than to the States.

Simply unbelievable that a federal judge would think the the Constitution and Amendments thereto do not completely and fully apply to DC. Simply unbelievable!

[omnivore]

"Simply unbelievable that a federal judge would think the the Constitution and Amendments thereto do not completely and fully apply to DC. Simply unbelievable!"

She is terribly stupid, but I can believe it, that she would think or write this, despite being a federal judge. A lot of judges out there are complete idiots, including about their own field of law, as well as everything else. Their job doesn't require intelligence, all they're doing is exercising power arbitrarily. To mop a floor or cook a hamburger takes some level of intelligence. To listen to, or just sit there and pretend to listen to, two groups of lawyers disagree about something, and then pick one side as the winner, doesn't. As she makes abundantly clear with her "reasoning."

I'm not saying all judges are morons, they're not. I'm just saying some are, because there's no job requirement that says they can't be.