I'm sure all the gun-totting Patrick Mara supporters will come out of the woodwork now and post all sorts of "wahoo, we won" emails, but the passage of this legislation (out of the House anyway)is bigger than being about guns. It's about the District's right to govern itself.

Is Rep. Ross saying that the D.C. Council has somehow gained extra-legislative powers and can impose its will on small towns in middle America?

Huh? Martin, you're really stretching to try and put those words in his mouth...

The gun ban was unconstitutional when the council passed it in 1975, it was unconstitutional when it was repealed, and no amount of claiming "state's rights" is going to change any of that, particularly since D.C. isn't even a "state." The council could have passed these kinds of common-sense regulations decades ago, but they didn't. Instead, we got thirty years of being told residents were too stupid/racist to own a firearm and that the guy who robbed your house was a victim of social injustice. Well, game over. You lost. Time to stock up on ammunition and learn how to kill, because those zombies and CHUDS and morlocks aren't going to kill themselves.

And has anyone noticed that the theme music for Omegaman is eerily similar to that used in The Swimmer? Same chords, same melody, just a little jazzier. Maybe Robert Neville is just a jazzier guy than Ned Merrill, but I'm definitely putting that stuff on the mix tape for when I drive around the deserted streets in a convertible hunting for The Family.

His statement reflects the simpleminded view that somehow the DC government is really the federal government (a statement that's actually technically true, but not in the way he thinks it is). So if the federal government is somehow denying some cherished consitutional right, in the same town the the Constitution is in(!), then imagine what they'll do hundreds of miles away from there!

Just imagine: the Federal government denying a cherished constitutional right to the citizens of the District. That could never happen, right?

Hoyacougar,

Reid said it best. Either Rep. Ross misspoke or he knows so little about the District that he thinks local policies and regulations somehow flow upwards and become national policies and regulations simply because the D.C. Council and Congress share the same geographic space.

If he misspoke, he needs someone new to write him his talking points. If he didn't, he needs a crash course in what the difference between Washington and the District is.

What's truly frightening is that a guy that apparently knows so little about that huge difference has the power to impose his will on District residents through legislation like this.

Martin, Reid is also putting words in the Rep's mouth that he didn't say, or mean. Ross was simply using hyperbole to say that if we let dc pass laws to take your guns away, then pretty soon other jurisdictions will try and do the same.

Ross said nothing about the dc council passing laws for another jurisdiction or about the feds being the true dc gov't.

monkey was correct when he said that local govts can and often do abuse our rights until the feds get around to doing something about it.

Seeing as the "DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007" went f***ing nowhere in the House, where's DCVote's lawsuit? I mean, if it works for getting residents guns, why not voting representation? Because all I'm seeing on their site is a bunch of bitching about the Heller case and some dorky rap video.

"'Number one, I'm a pro-gun Democrat,' said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. 'Number 2, if the government of the District of Columbia can take your guns away from you in our nation's capital, Prescott, Arkansas, and many other small towns across the country could be next.'"

Like other posters have said, Ross is arguing that there's a legal and political slippery slope re: gun regulation. I don't know how people are reading so much into it....

Martin, I do not agree with Ross' arguments. I simply don't think he was saying what you and Reid were saying he was saying.

Well, I won't be happy until I can shoot up a charter school while exchanging my needles for medical marijuana. Think the Cato Institute will take that up pro bono? I'm hoping to get this case rolling in time for Be Kind to Prostitutes Day. I got my Hallmark cards and chocolate dildos and all that s**t lined up.

Martin said: "And yes, local governments do abuse rights. No doubt. But those abuses -- especially when they deal with constitutional rights -- are dealt with by courts, not Congress."

Um, what do you think the Heller case was about? Court said DC's gun laws were unconstitutional. DC said ok, but we'll just come up with equally stringent rules and wait for someone to sue us, lose, appeal, lose, appeal to the Supremes, lose again, and then be told again that our laws are unconstitutional.

Total cost: millions of dollars in legal fees and several years' time. All to be told what everyone knew from the start: the revised DC gun laws were unconstitutional. Apparently Martin is fine with local governments openly declaring that they were flouting Supreme Court orders. Of course, that's only when it's ok for such unlawful action. Were it a "nicer" constitutional right being openly infringed, perhaps he would feel differently (e.g., Mayor for Now Monk E.R. O'Tica's Publications and Speech Prior Approval Law of 2021).

It's pretty tiresome to be listening to Martin give the exact same illogical argument on this issue. On previous posts, others have shown how he's totally wrong in his argument, logic and analysis. Doesn't matter. He's still on his soapbox.

Well I'm about to put a newspaper-stuffed polar bear by that soap box and call in Homeland Security! Maybe!

And just because the city has the apparent authority to pass unconsitutional gun laws does not mean that they should or that it's right.

The Congress is trying to use its completely legitimate power to preempt what would have been a complete waste of time and money.

"Sure, it's slow, stupid and costly. But that's how legal changes of this magnitude happen."

Spoken like a true bureaucrat.

First statement should have been in quotes.

Registeringsucks,

Bureaucrat? Hardly. Look at any institutionalized democracy in the world and point out when radical changes happen quickly and without a consequent drawn-out legal battle. That's the unfortunate system that we've all consented to.

HCE,

If they passed a law like that, I'm sure we'd have plenty of us "whiny, white bloggers" filing lawsuit after lawsuit. But I would never ask Congress to intervene.

You know the headline I want to see? "House Passes Kidney Stone, Screams."

Reminds me of The Onion story, "Supreme Court Overtrns Car."

The Supreme Court did say that the ban was unconstitutional, that's true. But I guarantee that the city's lawyers (and Peter Nickles is a bright guy) would argue that the original regulations they passed -- as foolish as I think they were -- were in line with what the court ordered. For those that disagreed, they could go to court and have a judge settle it.

Gosh, I don't think I understand this. Federal courts just don't go out and decide matters they feel are worthy of judgment. There has to be a "case or controversy." This is dictated by the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Under this rubric, you need to have adverse parties with an actual legal gripe that the courts have the power to resolve. This aspect is called Article III standing, the elements of which are "injury in fact" (an actual gripe, e.g. your dog bit me), "causation" (the fact that your dog bit me caused me to be grievously injured) and "redressability" (Gosh, pretty white federal courts like this one hand out money damages to compensate plaintiffs like me for my medical expenses and to punish evil dog-owners like the defendant all the time and also use equitable remedies, such as taking that dog out and putting it down, while they are at it).

I'm finding it somewhat circular that the facts underlying the Heller decision (i.e. the existence of the DC gub regs) could somehow be resubmitted to the Court to reach a different conclusion inasmuch as these same facts represented the Case or Controversy standing elements which the Court actually considered.

i called mr. childers office yesterday to let his staff know that i was a district resident and didn't appreciate his sticking his nose in our business.

i also told his staff that i understood he was doing it so he could look like a tough guy back home in tupelo.

the staffer just said, "yessir"

G Lover Park,

The Supreme Court decision was written to leave no alternative other than further litigation. They knew they couldn't "legislate from the bench," so they wrote a decision that outlined a general principle (you can't outright ban handguns) but not much else. We should have expected that no matter how the District proceeded, someone would claim it violated the spirit of the Supreme Court decision and taken the city back to court. Ultimately, that's how the District's gun regulations will be written -- they'll be taking back to court until a court finally says things are kosher.

At the end of the day, my point is this: Congress shouldn't be intervening. I've outlined why I think this, and plenty of people disagree. These issues should still be hashed out locally, and that's exactly what's happening now. Congress has no reason to step in.

monkey: i don't have texting on my phone. m'girlfriend is none to happy about that. gotta get one of them upgrades, as the kids say.

and that wasn't a rap video, it's go-go. why you gotta hate on our music?

At the end of the day, my point is this: Congress shouldn't be intervening. I've outlined why I think this, and plenty of people disagree. These issues should still be hashed out locally, and that's exactly what's happening now. Congress has no reason to step in.

Ok, so now I follow. This is how it works.

(1) A local government passes a law which is wildly popular with the local population, although some feel it treats them unfairly and may not pass constitutional muster
(2) The law is challenged as unconstitutional
(3) The lower court deems specific provisions of the law to be unconstitutional
(4) The challenge makes its way to the Supreme Court
(5) The Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision, and in doing so flat out says that many of facets of the law are flat out unconstitutional
(6) The local government, with the support of the majority of the population, goes back and proposes “new regulations” that are remarkably similar to the same ones the Supreme Court said were flat out unconstitutional, knowing full well that there is almost no likelihood that the new regulations will pass muster under the decision just handed down, but it will take a good 10-20 years of stalling while the new litigation makes its way through the courts. In any event, the local government pretty much takes a position that is contrary to the general spirit of the law and does everything in its power to flout the decision of the Supreme Court
(7) The locals are all wildly enthusiastic that the local government has had the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they know to be right in their hearts, even though the Supreme Court of the United has said otherwise.
(8) In response to this wanton footdragging, the federal government steps in, which is wildly unpopular with the locals as it is seen as an usurpation of local authority.

Did I get that about right?

Good.

Now, instead of thinking about the DC Gun regulations, compare the steps above to Brown v. Board of Education and its aftermath, school desegregation---which, as I recall, involved a constitutionally protected freedom, but nevertheless, was very unpopular with the locals who weren’t exactly thrilled about its implementation. And as a result of the locals' attempts to footdrag or otherwise ignore the Court, intervention of national guard troops was required to help black kids get a decent education after a certain governor said “You can go to hell, Separate But Equal is the way we do things down here.”

Am I on track? OK, where did I blow it?