Yes. No.

No matter how SCOTUS rules, the basis for the ruling applies nationwide. This is what is scaring many politicians who talk out of the sides of their mouths pandering to the gun owners for votes yet don’t want to lose the power to ban guns at their whim.

If SCOTUS doesn’t rule broadly with direct effect on things like 922 (o), you can bet that before the echo of the gavel fades away, there will be challenges based on Heller against every gun ban in the nation. If SCOTUS wants to deal with a ton of these cases comeing to them, they will only declare the DC ban unConstitutional. If they want to save the tax payers a ton of money and everyone a lot of grief, they will rule with broad effect cutting down a lot of stuff with one sweep.

Either way, a lot of the gun laws are going away and real soon. Our nation will be far better off for it too.

Mike

In Federalist 32, Alexander Hamilton said very clearly that this provision is one “where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union,” and so this provision barred a concurrent power with EACH AND EVERY ONE of the states, rather than just the with the CEDING states. Therefore, the word “exclusive” was meant to be much more comprehensive than SCOTUS has held, and I don’t see any reason why it should be completely inapplicable to the municipal legislature in the nation’s capital.

Yes, home rule is constitutional; in Federalist 43, Madison did anticipate that “a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed” for the nation’s capital. Thus, I would not take the extreme position taken by St. George Tucker in 1803: “If the maxim be sound, that a delegated authority cannot be transferred to another to exercise, the project here spoken of [i.e. home rule] will probably never take effect.” But still, it doesn’t seem right to limit the word “exclusive” in the Constitution so as to allow a complete delegation of legislative authority even over the most momentous subjects affecting longstanding individual rights.

“A citizen of the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall be entitled to full representation in Congress, as if the citizen’s residence were part of the State from which it was ceded. This article shall take effect as to such a State upon its consent, and Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Different? Yes. “Directly Contrary” – I think that stretches it. Of course, aside from the subtle mis-characterization, when has the Vice President been mild in his viewpoint? He certainly has been the most independent VP in recent history.

As a matter of policy, Congress has delegated legislative authority of local matters to the locally elected city council, but surely that delegation should not extend to passing unconstitutional laws.

If a majority of members of both houses think the gun ban is unconstitutional, why not just pass a statute overriding it? The notion that deciding constitutional questions is exclusively for the courts is wrong. Congress can and should consider constitutionality in the exercise of its own powers.