I just came across an especially strange argument (and that’s saying something) against going to court to vindicate the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia. The author thinks that
A) the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states at all (he evidently rejects the 14th Amendment, so he concludes that the states may legally prohibit the free exercise of religion, shut down newspapers critical of the Governor, use torture, engage in unrestricted searches of “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” prohibit the possession of firearms, etc., etc.), and
B) the District of Columbia (which is a federal district and not one of the united states of America), “insofar as it behaves as a state, is properly treated as a pseudo-state by the Supreme Court.”*
The result of all that confusion?
Congress long ago delegated home rule functions to D.C., and it allows residents to elect mayors, city councilors, and a delegate to Congress. When it comes to the Second Amendment, then, D.C. is a state, and the Second Amendment does not restrict its policy-making discretion.
I’ve read and heard lots and lots of strained and implausible arguments against our lawsuit to vindicate the right to keep and bear arms, but few as risible as that one. But after my initial surprise that something so silly had made it onto the web, I noticed the author’s publications and the surprise vanished.
*If the District of Columbia is a “pseudo-state,” that means it is a “false” state, and if it is a false state, why should it be treated as a state?