Posted on 10/03/2014 8:49:06 AM PDT by rktman
You may remember that last month yet another gun law was passed in DC as they struggled to come into compliance with the Heller ruling, while still trying to find a way to restrict the rights of gun owners. At the time of its passage, the WaPo even noted that the new law was passed “reluctantly.” Phil Mendelson (D) (who drafted the bill along with the mayor) gave some rather blatant indications that he was trying to find a way to undercut the decision while realizing he was going to have a fight on his hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
As he said, to liberals no reason is good enough, unless you are a politically connected liberal or a liberal celebrity.
Based on the following, it would appear the best way to beat this might be petitioning congress.
As the federal capital, the constitution grants the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in “all cases whatsoever.”
At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has allowed certain powers of government to be carried out by locally elected officials. However, Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and exercises greater oversight of the city than exists for any U.S. state. Furthermore, the District’s elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.
“...the District’s elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.”
Something for the GOP to tackle next session! Hah!
“If you allow the local government to then pass laws which essentially say that you are entitled to own a firearm, but only if you can show sufficient reason for needing one, is the same as allowing an outright ban if the people in charge believe that nobody has a good enough reason.”
That is the New Jersey way. NJ is listed as a “may issue” state, but in practice, they do NOT issue. If we could trust the courts, they would have long ago admonished NJ to play straight with its citizens.
***he was trying to find a way to undercut the decision....***
Jerry Brown just this month undercut the will of the California voters when back in 1982 when they rejected Prop 15.
We know that Prop 15 and most any other ballot initiatives/propositions that are passed in Cali by a majority of the voters don’t hold water and the Cali supremes can over-ride and toss them out nilly willy. Basically “Who cares what the voters voted for? What do they know? We’re much smarter than those that are not ‘super-sophisticated’ and we’ll let them know what’s best for them.”
What Congressional treatment would not require the signature of the pResident?
Because congress has the power to revoke the elected government already through legislation already passed. It’s within their charter. Any legislation changing the powers they already would require presidential approval.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.