“It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation’s capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution. “

That’s the Washington Post editorializing about the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing on the virtual application of D.C. v Heller to the rest of the country. (The ruling only affected the District of Columbia, a federal city.)

It should be noted that the Post actually opposed the majority ruling, which was in favor of gun rights. But as the editors note in today’s column, the court has already ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the individual right to keep and bear arms. It would be legally indefensible to conclude that such an interpretation applies to a federal city but not to Illinois. The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment, whether you live in D.C. or Chicago.

The court, consisting of the same ideological recipe as the one that ruled on D.C. v Heller, should find in favor of the pro-gun rights plaintiffs. Anything else would be an atrocity.