I'd normally agree with the Washington Post on this one. The representatives of the people of the District of Columbia should ordinarily have relatively free reign in legislating for the District, Congress' constitutional powers to oversee the city government notwithstanding.

That said, in this case the Congress must act as it is prepared to do in order to safeguard the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

H.R. 6691 is the latest effort by the National Rifle Association to wrest jurisdiction over local gun legislation from the District's elected officials. It comes as city officials are in the midst of formulating permanent legislation to comply with the landmark Supreme Court ruling overturning the city's long-standing ban on handguns. Sponsors of the measure, 47 conservative Democrats and five Republicans, say that D.C. officials can't be trusted and so they are acting to ensure Second Amendment rights for city residents. It's a maddening argument considering that none of those who signed on to the bill would ever stomach letting Congress dictate local law to their constituents.

Equally troubling is that the bill goes beyond the scope of the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller authorizing gun possession for self-defense in the home. The majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia specified that a range of gun regulations are "presumptively lawful." But, if sponsors of H.R. 6691 have their way, the District would be barred from passing any law that would "prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden" gun ownership by anyone not barred by existing (and weak) federal gun laws. That would mean that the District couldn't require a vision test or shooting proficiency or education about gun safety for children. Gun registration would be abolished, as would the ban on carrying weapons -- even military-style rifles -- in public. It's a scary scenario in a city where political protests, presidential motorcades and visits by foreign dignitaries are routine.

The problem, of course, is that the city has for decades violated the civil liberties of its residents, and after being told so has imposed regulations nearly as burdensome and likely as unconstitutional as those struck down by the Supreme Court this past summer. As such, it is Congress' duty to step in and stop such violations of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment in the one place where it has the clearest constitutional ability to do so -- the District of Columbia.

I'm curious -- would the Post's editors be quite so upset if the legislation in question were designed to protect the press freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment from a city government that showed them no respect? No, I didn't think so either.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.