The District of Columbia released its long awaited petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Parker/Heller case. Mayor Adrian Fenty held a Tuesday morning press conference which was anticipated by 3 articles and a guest editorial in the Washington Post. All of the stories in the Post echoed the City’s contention that the Court of Appeals made a radical decision when they interpreted the part of the Second Amendment which says, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, as meaning that the People’s right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
In the guest editorial Mayor Fenty explained the decision of the Supreme Court in the Miller case and the Presser case while of course leaving out many inconvenient details. It was particularly apropos that a picture of a Colt Commander accompanied the mayor’s article. Like the mayors interpretation of the Miller case, the image of the gun was made to look like it was pointing one way when a closer examination by anyone with rudimentary knowledge would immediately reveal that it was inverted and couldn't possibly be pointing that way.
DC’s petition takes a four-prong approach: First they claim that the Second Amendment is a collective, not an individual right. Second they claim that the Second amendment only restricts the federal congress, not state and local governments. Third they claim that since the Second Amendment refers to the “security of a free state”, that it doesn’t apply to DC which is not a state. And finally they claim that even if the Second Amendment really does refer to an individual right which is applicable to all individual citizens and binding on all federal, state, and local governments including the District of Columbia, that banning the purchase or possession of an entire category of firearms (handgun), should not be considered an “infringement”, but rather a reasonable restriction on a right for the safety of the community.
Lead council for the plaintiffs, Alan Gura, says that they will encourage the Court to hear the case and are looking forward to rebutting all of the District’s claims.
A decision on whether they’ll hear the case should come down before the end of the year and, if they do choose to hear the case – which most court watchers say is likely – oral arguments should be heard early next year and a decision should come down sometime in early to mid-Summer. It is possible that the Court would withhold their decision until after the November elections, but that is not considered likely.