Robert Levy has this interesting opinion piece asking why Congress would want to derail Parker v. District of Columbia, a.k.a. the D.C. gun control case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.
Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn’t possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors "both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ..."
Incredible.
Levy points out that the bills in question could be repealed by a future, more liberal Congress, and that the Parker case would be considered moot. Levy has some suggestions if Congress and the NRA really want to help.
D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can’t be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.
Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.
I would be sorely disappointed if Parker were derailed, if for no other reason than I'm curious what this Court would say about it. If this legislation passes, that opportunity might be lost.
|