Nope, that's why it's so exciting that the D.C. case may go to SCOTUS: there has never been an explicit ruling by SCOTUS, to the best of my knowledge, that the Second Amendment means an individual right to bear arms. In fact the Court hasn't even taken a Second Amendment case in over 70 years. The not-a-State argument would presumably come from the fact that most of the Constitution is about States and State citizens; however, the 14th Amendment grants Americans federal as well as state citizenship, so the Second Amendment would apply to D.C. through the 14th.
Also re: Guantanamo, yes, the argument has been that that's not inside the U.S., the U.S. controls what goes on there but does not have jurisdiction there - see Rasul v. Bush - but SCOTUS granted cert to two Gitmo cases, Boumediene and al-Odah, so (unless Bush shuts down Gitmo before the case comes up, rendering it moot) SCOTUS may well yet decide that these situations are, as you say, ludicrous, and the Constitution applies in our internment camps in Cuba just as it does in D.C. or Pasadena. (For more, see Korematsu v. U.S., on the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans, and Johnson v. Eisentrager, another post-WWII case, concerning Germans held in U.S.-run prisons in Germany.)
Also re: Guantanamo, yes, the argument has been that that's not inside the U.S., the U.S. controls what goes on there but does not have jurisdiction there - see Rasul v. Bush - but SCOTUS granted cert to two Gitmo cases, Boumediene and al-Odah, so (unless Bush shuts down Gitmo before the case comes up, rendering it moot) SCOTUS may well yet decide that these situations are, as you say, ludicrous, and the Constitution applies in our internment camps in Cuba just as it does in D.C. or Pasadena. (For more, see Korematsu v. U.S., on the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans, and Johnson v. Eisentrager, another post-WWII case, concerning Germans held in U.S.-run prisons in Germany.)
Reply
Leave a comment