[CJ Wolf]

Entirely correct. The Constitution does NOT confer rights. DC isn't a state, and the Feds can do what they want, in their own District... "No different than barring weapons from an Army post."

....Except that I can not go buy a townhouse on an Army Post. Except that Criminals don't wander around selling crack and shooting kids raping and killing women in the army post parks. Except that most army posts aren't considered the murder capital of the world at times. Except that an Army post is not a City. Except that a Army post generally has nobody living on it except Army personel and possible family.

The feds need to be restricted not the citizens.

[FreeTheHostages]

Wow, interesting post CJ. I can tell that you, like me, have lived in this city.

Re crime & D.C., it boils my blood that the Washington Post thinks the crime issue in this city is policy brutality, where anyone who's lived here knows that although we do have a lot of good cops, altogether too many are lazy or illiterate and the real crime issue is cops that do nothing and crime statistics that are doctored by the police bureaucrats.

[taxcontrol]

Further, the Army does not restrict the owning of a firearm. Unit commanders may restrict where firearms are kept (in the weapons locker or armory). Post commanders may prohibit the storage of firearms by military personnel in the base housing (houses OWNED by the Army), though I can not recall a single post commander who did.

The Army CAN NOT prohibit the ownership of firearms. They can restrict the storage IF the arms are to be kept in OR on Army property. This would be similar to you restricting where your 18 year old relative could (or could not) store a firearm in your house.

Remember ownership is different from carry is different from storage.