I think your right, read how the question was framed for the SCOTUS to answer, and make note of the fact that the SCOTUS actually authored the question to be answered, normally, the question comes from one or more of the parties involved. The question they are planning to answer is:
“Whether the following provisions [three sections of the D.C. gun law] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
The question is asking whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia. If it doesn’t then the DC Attorneys have no standing to argue issues related to the Constitution.
Due to the fact that this case revolves around a non-state, I very much doubt that this is the case that the SCOTUS will use to clear up the 2nd.
Correct. It will be a narrowly defined judgement against the DC law, but will not change any of exisiting laws made regarding the 'several states'.
It possibly will have an impact on places like Morton Grove where similar law has been enacted or other jurisdictions that are restrictive.
I'll tell you what -- if I were a DC politician and the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to people living in a non-state, I would immediately propose the following:
All newspaper content within the District of Columbia must be reviewed by the new Censorship Board.
All places of worship in DC must close immediately, with the exception of the Episcopalian Churches.
Police will be searching homes whenever they feel like it, and removing guns, and also inappropriate reading material.
I cannot believe that the Court will open up that can of worms.