Well, looks like I've found a reason to respect the Mayor of DC; he declared yesterday that DC will appeal to the Supreme Court after their quite reasonable ban on handguns was struck down by an appeals court back in March.
District of Columbia officials said Monday
they plan to petition the Supreme Court as they seek to defend the
city's 30-year-old ban on most handguns.
A federal appeals court panel struck down the law in March,
rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear
arms applied only to militias. The full appeals court refused to
reconsider the decision in May. The law has remained in effect during
the appeals process.
"We believe we are right on the law and we hope the Supreme
Court will agree with us," D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said.
Should be interesting - this is apparently only the first time in 70 years that the Supreme Court has taken up a case that looks at the extent of the Second Amendment, and one can only hope this time DC doesn't have to deal with judges who can't read:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.
Perhaps we'll get lucky and this time the NRA straw man of "personal defense" will finally start to be shown up for the sham that it is. DC and Chicago have bad enough murder rates with the bans on gun ownership that we have, what with guns being smuggled from less reasonable areas that still allow the sales of murder weapons willy-nilly, without even more guns flooding our streets.
(Incidentally, the US Supreme Court at the last time they took up the issue, rejected that the 2nd Amendment allowed for ownership of handguns):
"The ACLU agrees with the
Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment
[as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's
right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes,
the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the
regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
(Edit: News story via DC Metblogs, which has a slightly different take on the news.)