Interesting take on the DC Gun Ban case

Quite aside from the question of whather a gun ban violates our right to keep and bear arms, is the question of whether the DC Metro Government has ANY authority to make any laws at all, much less unconstitutional ones. This author points out that the Constitution flatly says NO... and suggests that that fact might be brought out before the Supreme Court when it hears the DC Gun Ban case this summer.

Could the entire DC Metro government be dissolved as a result of this case and the facts it is bringing to light, about constitutional requirements upon the government of the city of Washington DC?

---

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/080107

District of Columbia: open mouth, insert gun
Loony Left may have bitten off more than it can chew

Tom Kovach
January 7, 2008

Like a spoiled toddler trying to punch a parent, the District of Columbia is about to lash out against the Congress that gave it birth. Given that the issue is gun possession, the District may be in a suicidal situation. At the very least, Congress should give the DC Metro Government the spanking that it so richly deserves.

The ultimate question to be decided in a pending case before the United States Supreme Court is, "Who's in charge here?" According to District "leaders," the case hinges upon the question of whether the Second Amendment preserves an individual right or a collective right to keep and bear arms. But, in the minds of most sensible citizens, that question is stare decisis (Latin for "already decided"; a legal doctrine that prevents the same question from being repeatedly brought into court). The District is appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision by the Court of Appeals last year. That decision upheld the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment, and thereby overturned the District's ban on handgun possession. Given that all other rights specified in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (except for the Tenth Amendment, which protects states' rights), it would seem to be a "no-brainer" that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

But, given the Metro DC penchant to have repeatedly elected cocaine user Marion Berry as its village idiot - oops, I meant "mayor" - for so many years, it seems that common sense is as rare in DC as a legal handgun was during Mr. Berry's tenure. [1]

The anti-gunners of the Loony Left have painted themselves into a corner with their court case. By taking an appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and basing an argument on the interpretation of a key tenet of the Constitution, the anti-gun crowd in DC Metro Government has opened to door for their own demise. How? According to the very Constitution that they are attempting to redefine, there is no such thing as a DC Metro Government. Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16), it is the duty of Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district..." The Founders of this country were highly intelligent men, skilled in linguistics. The fact that they used the terms "exclusive," "in all cases" and "whatsoever" all in the same clause showed that there was no ambiguity in their emphasis of who was in charge of the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as a DC Metro Government. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a "mayor" to bring such a lawsuit, and no such thing as a "DC gun ban."

But, because the Loony Left is so focused on power that they lose sight of exactly what they must grab to get it, the DC Metro Government has now essentially jumped enthusiastically into the Lake of Fire. How? If an initiative had come from the Congress to disband the DC Metro Government, and thus take back rightful Congressional authority over the District, then voters and bureaucrats alike would cry "foul." But, because the District's own elected leaders have voluntarily (and, at considerable taxpayer expense) filed this foolish court appeal, there is no way out of their own noose. The DC "mayor" cannot appeal from a Supreme Court decision. (How can one be "mayor" of a government that doesn't legally exist?) Therefore, if the appellants are faced with an attack of their very legal standing to bring the appeal, and if that standing is negated with prejudice, then the DC Metro Government could simply cease to exist. And, to paraphrase a line from an old TV commercial, "Oh, what a relief it would be!"

There is a terrible irony in all of this. The anti-gunners have already admitted defeat. How? In their own papers to the Court of Appeals, the attorneys argue (on page 27) that Congress has plenary jurisdiction over the District. Thus, they have already handed the scimitar to their own executioner. The only question remaining is who will swing the sword, and thus put the DC gun-ban crowd out of business for the foreseeable future.

a voice in the wilderness

Lawyers for the various factions on both sides of the issue might want to stay away from such a "third rail" argument, as a matter of "legal decorum." But, a strict Constitutionist view of the situation - as it applies to both gun control and the existence of a rogue governmental entity - requires that the demise of the DC Metro Government be put on the table. Some might bemoan the concept, and would argue, "But, what would replace it?" The correct answer is: nothing! Congress already has authority over the District of Columbia, via the Constitution. The establishment of the DC Metro Government in the first place was an abdication of Congressional authority. Congressmen need to pick up the authority that their predecessors laid down, or else the Capitol Building will be seen as a raft of weakness amidst a sea of Socialism.

Who will take up this fight? Who has standing to bring an amicus curiae brief with such a "nuclear option" argument? Primarily someone that is already a member of Congress, or someone that has plans to become a member of Congress. In the 2006 election, I ran for Congress. But, the media blatantly ignored my campaign. Nonetheless, I've succeeded in gaining name recognition within the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee. Part of that recognition comes from my lawsuit against the governor, to stop an arrogant pet project for an underground party hall at the Governor's Mansion.

The petition season for the 2008 election cycle will open in about two weeks, and it is likely that I will run again for Congress. If that happens, then I would have standing to bring an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in the gun-ban case. Why? Because, if elected, you can rest assured that I would not live in the District unarmed. More Americans are killed in the District of Columbia each year than are killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Socialist self-destruction

In their quest to have total power, and to disarm law-abiding citizens, the Socialists behind the anti-gun movement, especially in the District of Columbia, have practiced a peculiar form of legal self-destruction that can be described simply as "open mouth, insert gun." They will not be missed by many.