I must respectfully decline to join in Mr. Kinsella's "dissent" from the gun decision.
Even if one could make a credible argument that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the District of Columbia -- I'm not convinced, but that's not important -- there's no reason to want to make that argument. Taking Bill of Rights protections away from DC denizens wouldn't increase anyone's liberty, or even serve federalist purposes, because DC is a part of the federal government either way.
Bringing this lawsuit in DC was a smart, if risky, means of presenting this one simple issue to the court. It will almost certainly increase liberty and save countless lives, effective immediately. I don't like it that we have a Supreme Court deciding such things for us, but we do, and as long as we do, let's have more decisions like this one. (Unlikely.)
More worthy of dissent and ridicule: Scalia's gratuitous comments at the end of his decision about how the police today provide us with "personal" security. Sure, if you're a Supreme Court justice or the Vice President. The rest of us are out of luck -- the Supreme Court itself has said we have no right to be protected by the police we're forced to pay for.
