as I understand it, SCOTUS ruled that gun control laws don’t violate the 2nd amendment because states form the militias it refers to and thus have the authority to regulate arms within their own territories.
But what about Washington D.C., which is directly ruled by congress? It has some pretty strict gun control laws of it’s own, and the idea of the national capitol forming it’s own non-national military force (aka militia) seems pretty absurd, even from a legal standpoint.
I think you’ve made a lot of errors in those two paragraphs. Primarily, the Court ruled that there is an individual right to own a gun in DC, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Yeah, I meant to do a bit more research before posting, but somehow ended up posting when I closed out the tab. I was a bit distracted at the time. Guess I’m back to square one for understanding this mess.