Could Parker Decision (gun rights) help D.C. gain full home rule?

[SteveM]

For many years, the old (and nearly obsolete Southern Democratic segregationists) and the new-right have asserted that since D.C. was not a state, its citizens could not enjoy the privileges and immunities of the U.S. Constitution as guaranteed any state's citizens by the 14th Amendment. Now, the Parker Decision earlier this year has recognized a District individual's right to keep and bear arms, a right protected directly by the U.S. Constitution. Can other "rights" (such as a voting member of Congress, autonomous governance, taxation with representation, etc.) be recognized under other provision of the Constitution?
Any DUers have legal theories on this?

Note: this is not simply a question of Second Amendment rights.

Also, SteveM's odometer has turned!

[ThomWV]

1. Why would a non-state be granted privileges of a state?

What's the argument in favor of granting voting rights to a non-state?

[piedmont]

2. Because its citizens deserve the same rights as other citizens.

If D.C. doesn't have voting rights in Congress, then its citizens are dprived of the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

[Hangingon]

4. Let's solve the problem...

Reduce the District to the Federal Mall - Supreme Court to White House or some such - and return the other areas to Maryland.

[piedmont]

5. Sounds good to me. nt

[SteveM]

3. Perhaps because citizens of D.C. do not enjoy taxation with representation.

I am under the impression that any act taken by the "governing" bodies of D.C. can be overruled, changed or eliminated by Congress. But since Parker recognizes a right (to wit, 2A) it would appear that D.C.'s non-state status did not get in the way of the Court's ruling. Can this be done in other instances where the rights, privileges and immunities of D.C. citizens are subject to abrogation?

[Igel]

6. But the logic breaks down.

There's no right for a citizen of the US to vote for Congressional representation. States have representation, and the citizens of states decide those states' representation.

Take Puerto Rico, for example. They are citizens, they have no federal representation. They don't pay federal income taxes (at least most don't), but they pay FICA and medicare.

However, they still have all the Constitutional rights. They can't have their free speech abrogated, searches and seizures have to be reasonable, etc.

Same for DC residents. They have Constitutional rights, federal rights. But there's no Constitutional right for them to have a Congressperson represent them.