The construction of the 2A, though awkward, has been thoroughly hashed over by legal academics for decades, and as admitted by everyone but the diehard intentionally blind far statists, its an individual right. Let's hope the SCOTUS opinion at least puts that to rest, so reporters like Lithwick can quit misconstruing it.

Since DC is directly under federal jurisdiction, I don't see where any federalism principles are involved. No 14thA incorporation required here. Another obvious error.

Finally, the whole article has that annoying snobby urbanite thing going. I'm perfectly happy with someone like Lithwick not wanting to own a firearm. But she clearly can't stand the thought of someone else owning one. "Ewwww! So uncivilized!" Just another example of a rural/urban culture divide, or in the case of DC, a rich protected sheltered twit failing to come to grips with the grittier side of reality. Sort of a "let them eat cake" attitude.

The whole pioneer thing has to do with what the founders were thinking when they wrote what they wrote. Not what Roberts daydreams about. Part of that pesky originalist doctrine.

The real issue is that average law-abiding Americans shouldn't have to justify their decision to have a basic firearm in their own home. To anyone. Any more than they should have to justify holding opinion or writing thoughts. (Now, how those words get distributed may be open to some reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions ... but that's a differnt question.)

It always amazes me when reporters, who should be plenty conversant with the 1A, can get the 2A so wrong.