Question: Are both District of Columbia v. Heller and Glasser v. United States concerning the same amendment to the constitution?
Context: Robert A. Levy (born 1941 in Washington, DC) is the chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute and the organizer and financier behind "District of Columbia v. Heller", the Supreme Court Case that established the Second Amendment as affirming an individual right to gun ownership.  He is a Cato senior fellow and an author and pundit.  Before becoming a lawyer, he was the founder and CEO of CDA Investment Technologies. Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of Columbia city council on September 24, 1976.  The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976.  The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"; this was deemed to be a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.  On June 26, 2008, in the historic case of "District of Columbia v. Heller", the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the ban and trigger lock provisions violate the Second Amendment. Clayton E. Cramer is an American historian, author, gun enthusiast, and software engineer.  He played an important early role in documenting errors in the book "" by Michael A. Bellesiles, a book that was later proven to be based on fraudulent research.  His work was cited by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in "United States v. Emerson", 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex.  1999).  His research also informed the Supreme Court decision in the seminal Second Amendment cases "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago".  He holds an MA in history from Sonoma State University.  He currently resides in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, near Boise. Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President.  The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.  Due to Washington, D.C. 's special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (2010) in which it was found that they are.  It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools.  Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before "Brown v. Board of Education", 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "Bolling" was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as "Brown."  The "Bolling" decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second "Brown" opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed."  "Bolling" did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In "Bolling," the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure.  "Glasser" was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest. Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority is a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association the day after the United States Supreme Court decided in "District of Columbia v. Heller" that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use.  The complaint against San Francisco challenges the city's ban of guns in public housing. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.  The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of "District of Columbia v. Heller" as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Answer: no