US Supreme Court votes on DC's handgun ban.

[icarus]

US Supreme Court votes on Washington DC's handgun ban.

I lived in the DC area for ten years. I noticed that Washington DC had the largest number of murders in the US while the handgun ban was in place. DC is small. All anyone had to do was go across the river to Virginia where the laws were more lenient.

I forsee a lot of flag waving and breast-beating over a law that didn't work in the first place.

If I'm not mistaken, on a legal level this was less an issue about gun rights and more about state's rights and Washington DC's yet again fuzzy status as not-really-a-state.

Comments

[lherelenfeline.livejournal.com]

From what I understood, after 3 classes of con law, is that the only thing DC's status affected was the length of the process. Because of their status they could go directly to the federal judiciary instead of running the state court gauntlet first. Moreover, Heller was the ideal plaintiff in this, being a security guard who already HAD a license for his work weapon.
That said, Scalia's opinion explicitly states that the second amendment gives all 'the people' the right to have weapons AND to carry them, regardless of their belonging to a militia, or any other paramilitary organization. The militia argument is what most local and state bans are predicated on.
Now to the states rights question.
The Constitution is not just federal law, it is the Supreme Law of the Land, meaning that all other laws, federal or local must adhere to it. For example, the damaged portion of the Violence Against Women Act ( a federal law) was struck as an unconstitutional overreaching of the Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The same court ruled against a state law limiting one's fifth amendments rights in Miranda v. Arizona. Local state constitutions may exceed the federal in granting people rights, but it is the US constitution that sets the minimal bar. The same goes for treaties, executive agreements and other international acts of the government. That is the reason why the US has not signed on to the international courts.
You are right about there being a balancing act, but it is not only between the feds and states. It is between the feds, the states and ' the people', meaning the entire populace of the US regardless of their state of residence. That is the reasoning behind allowing suits with an element of 'diversity of citizenship' ( residence in more than one state) to start at the federal level. While the constitution has set specific limits on the federal legislature by reserving rights to the states, it has also set limits on ALL legislatures by reserving rights to ' the people'. The core of those are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and have since been expanded via amendments. According to Scalia the right to bear arms is a rights explicitly reserved to ' the people' and therefore cannot be denied by any legislature. The logical conclusion one can draw from the is that blanket bans favoured by big cities are unconstitutional and must be brought in line with the second amendment.
That said , I've only read the opinion once.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It looks like you know more about it than I do.

Except one thing: now that assault weapons ban has lapsed WG's probably stocking up (though currently I'm sure where he plans to store assault rifles, although I've put in a vote for civilian P-90s). So we're not at all upset about the decision.

[lherelenfeline.livejournal.com]

I'm not particularly upset either, to be honest.
It rankles me when the government just starts taking and taking rights that are not theirs by any stretch of the constitution.