Supreme Court decision... question

[Elect]

If Washington DC does in fact belong solely in the jurisdiction of Congress, and outside the Constitutional protections, how is it that the Supreme Court can overrule their "plenary" powers in that place? Isn't their law "private law"?

If in fact the Constitution has no place there, or in other "federal territories" as many tax protest-types that I read say, how can the Supreme Court make any ruling at all?

Besides, from what I've read, they only really stated it is a right to own a gun for the protection of one's home, carrying firearms with you outside your home was not addressed.

[ezrhythm]

D.C. is a territory of the private corporation UNITED STATES which is not the same as “the united States”. It is not outside constitutional protections.
And yes, their law is private law.

Tax protest-types are generally wrong.

If the case concerned being able to possess/use a firearm inside one’s home then that is what the justices ruled on and nothing else unless they address additional points.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by Elect

If Washington DC does in fact belong solely in the jurisdiction of Congress, and outside the Constitutional protections, nonsense, Congress is the legislative authority that DC is subject to, Art I S 8 C 17, otherwise it is still subject to all Federal laws as well as the constitution how is it that the Supreme Court can overrule their "plenary" powers in that place? For the same reason that it can over rule Congress on other matters if they act outside of the constitution Isn't their law "private law"? No, it is still public law, it just pertains specifically to DC.

If in fact the Constitution has no place there, or in other "federal territories" as many tax protest-types that I read say, how can the Supreme Court make any ruling at all? This is also nonsense, where federal writ runs, so too does the court’s constitutional authority.

Besides, from what I've read, they only really stated it is a right to own a gun for the protection of one's home, carrying firearms with you outside your home was not addressed.

The court opinion carries over to all the states. The problem as I see it was that it was not terribly clear, and left a lot of gray area. It at least acknowledged the interpretation that most people give the amendment, without coming out fully in favor of it. They were far more positive than I expected them to be, but they have two NRA Republicans on the bench now and they have to at least appear to hold to the party line.