Mendelson and his colleagues part of the problem that has caused DC to be one of the leaders in murder and violent crime. If they spent half as much time, energy and money going after true criminals as they do attempting to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves, DC would be a far safer city.

Why not try banning rap music? Or violent "assault media"? Countries where this is regulated or banned tend to have lower violent crime rates.

The DC Attorney General should go back to school.

DC can not enforce laws or regulations that are not on the books yet. Nor can he delay a decision by the Supreme Court to its own ends.

DC Residents right now can legally own guns (not just one). They do not have to wait for new regulations. They do not have to turn themselves in for an Amnesty when the law governing this has been declared moot.

This is DC Government propaganda and not law.

If Mendelson wants to "ensure the safety and well-being" of DC residents he can swiftly ditch the ban and pass concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens so that the thugs who inhabit our city finally have a reason to think twice before they assault, rape or rob.

As in the previous posted comment, I'd also like to see country music banned as well as every hunting show on cable. The law states that you can't shoot a person just for entering your castle but you can defend yourself if you are cornered by the assailant. But then guys named Steve can be a Bubba too, can't they? We enjoyed checked you gun at the door for years but now welcome to little Bagdad. Watch out DC, gun stores are going to a field day giving you the chance to kill your fellow man.

The court specifically said it wasn't striking down the requirement that guns have to be licensed by DC -- so that requirement is still on the books.

The 2nd amendment is NOT an individual right; it's simply a statement that in order for us to defend our community when called as part of a militia, our right to bear arms (for that purpose) shall not be infringed--to keep them and bring them with us. Since militias were nearly useless even when they existed, and went out of existence over 150 years ago, the 2nd amendment has for a long time been MEANINGLESS. However, it is also the case that our Constitution (not the NRA's)says NOTHING about keeping and using guns for hunting, target sports and self-defense. The idea then is that we have a right to have guns for 'personal' use as part of our heritage of liberty(see Declaration of Independence, i.e.,... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Meaning: the right to have and use guns for hunting, target sports,and self-defense, is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment and that broad right can be regulated, 'abridged', limited by what WE decide are OUR interests,i.e., by city councils, state legislatures, etc., contrary to what the NRA and its bought and paid for scholars' claim.

Ban the guns & only the criminals will have them! Liberals are ignorant & wimpy!

The most remarkable thing about all of this is that the Interim (so-called) "Attorney General", Mr. Peter Nickles, did not have the intestinal fortitude to tell his boss, Mr. Fenty, long ago, that the D.C. ban on handguns, as written, is unconstitutional.

Mr. Nickles' job is not to serve Mr. Fenty as his personal assistant -- which is actually all Mr. Nickles has done since he started scheming to get Linda Singer to quit. Mr. Nickles' job, as the Interim Attorney General for the District of Columbia is to uphold the law. Period. Not Mr. Fenty's view of the law. Not the view of the law that most facilitates what Mr. Fenty's financial backers think would be best. Not even the view of the law which jives with Mr. Nickles' own predilections towards Napoleonic absolutism and arbitrariness. Mr. Nickles is supposed to research all law and decisions relating to a particular matter, and come up with the most rational interpretation of that issue he can come up with. He's not supposed to pander to Mr. Fenty or anyone else involved in the D.C. government. In fact, he's supposed to STAND UP to them, if and whenever necessary to upholding, supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution and the compliant laws of the District of Columbia.

Wasting the taxpayers money on fighting this case to the Supreme Court, and then having the unmitigated gall to tell people that the District of Columbia doesn't have to obey the Supreme Court 'right away' shows that he's unprincipled, lacking in personal integrity and not qualified for his post.

We don't need Peter Nickles. We need someone who is committed to upholding and abiding and enforcing the laws as written, even if this means that his bosses will fire him for not doing their bidding.

Identify, Locate, Arrest all proponents of gun control for they are traitors to our way of life and are the cause of rampant cime, and therefor are guilty of same. Let justice Trickle down. When the little folk see the big pigs getting hanged for mass murder, they surely will know they too will hang if they commit crimes against the American people!!

We're at the start of this debate, but the USSJC ruling is a good one. Now, however, firearms onwers need to watch out for jim-crow like legislation that will acknowledge your right but attempt to make it impossible to exercise your right. Totalitarians used such laws to deny people the right to vote in the bad old south, and modern totalitarians will try to wedge you away from your rights with prohibitively restrictive conditions placed on ammunition, places where you can carry, "licensing" procedures, and so forth.

Today's ruling is a small victory for civil rights, but we're a long long way from achieving real tolerance and respect for firearms owners' 2nd Amendment right.

What Mike in AZ just said is exactly why it is imperative to do like in the comment before his. Democrats do have one value, if we boil the oil out of them...like we used to do to whales... It would cure crime, protect freedom, protect the unborn, solve the energy crisis, our enemies would refuse to openly consider speaking against the Americans, as they would know we mean business... it is win win win win- if we would just boil dems for oil!

The supreme court got it right. I just don't understand why it wasn't unanimous... oh yeah... liberal communist pigs on the high court... right.

The supreme court got it right. I just don't understand why it wasn't unanimous... oh yeah... liberal communist pigs on the high court... right.

The usual partisan idiocy seems rampant among the "opinions" here.....

Here is mine: We (yes, WE) need to all wake up and realize that we have been suckered by our leaders and our embrace of the 2-Party system..."They" love to keep us at odds, because as long as "we the people" are nit-picking each other, the Big Boys keep control, and keep getting richer.

Self-Defense is a right all should embrace, regardless of affiliation.

The usual partisan idiocy seems rampant among the "opinions" here.....

Here is mine: We (yes, WE) need to all wake up and realize that we have been suckered by our leaders and our embrace of the 2-Party system..."They" love to keep us at odds, because as long as "we the people" are nit-picking each other, the Big Boys keep control, and keep getting richer.

Self-Defense is a right all should embrace, regardless of affiliation.

The usual partisan idiocy seems rampant among the "opinions" here.....

Here is mine: We (yes, WE) need to all wake up and realize that we have been suckered by our leaders and our embrace of the 2-Party system..."They" love to keep us at odds, because as long as "we the people" are nit-picking each other, the Big Boys keep control, and keep getting richer.

Self-Defense is a right all should embrace, regardless of affiliation.

Its about time. It was during the ban that DC was once the murder capital of the free world. Instead of trying to make the regulations stronger its time for our leaders to take the high road and establish classes, and allow for concealed weapons. It now time to give the criminal something to think about before they lurch. Amen!!!

Obama is a communist should man up and come on out of the closet. You got some serious issues that can only heal if you stop hiding beihind your sensless rehetoric.

My father told me that once chocolate city become vanilla village the gun ban would be repealed. I guess he was right.

Hooray, the Supreme Court finally got something right. Crooks will always be able to get guns no matter what the law says. Laws don't seem to bother them.

Has any of these councilmen stated that they are proud of this decision????? NO!

Vote Smallberries in the fall!

No More BS

As an unrepresented American residing in DC (over half-a-million population, no congressman, no Senators), I would much rather have access to ballots than to bullets.

What ever happened to "Just Power derives from the Consent of the Governed"?
-- citizenw, Washington, Demesne of Congress

This is exactly what I expected from highly conservative Republican justices who are probably supported by not only the oil industry but by the NRA. I could understand the ruling had they made clear provisions, without loopholes, about gun registration, background checks, fingerprinting purchasers and clear checks and balances. What else can we expect from out of touch, self-serving and elitist justices who see themselves above the rest of us. We should pull them off their pedastals and force them to live in violent areas--then they would change their minds. We should demand the right to sue the manufactuers, the NRA, and the justices when the next innocent child is killed.

Principles Not Politics, good post. I will be watching this guy Nickles closely. I couldn't believe what I was hearing today when his rant was being broadcast.

Peter Nickles has a hard problem of moving his ego aside when interpreting law. That is going to present big troubles for the District. He treats his position as a legal playground where he can "play" judge only without the robe. He is an embarrassment to the Mayor and to the citizens of this city. Only some of them haven't yet realized it.

His ego has resulted in a ruling that will impact every city and state in the Nation.

Way to go boy wonder and papa Gizmo.

The Constitution and Bill Of Rights do not "grant" any rights whatsoever. People need to get it through their heads that these documents simply protect the rights that we all have as our birthright and state that the government cannot take them away. Simple as that. Too many people know little about history and try and use current definitions to interpret the meaning of the words used in the second amendment. The SC did the right thing by looking at the definition and intent at the time it was written. They also looked at other documents written by the authors and then used all that information to arrive at their conclusion. Look past the hype and emotions and you should see they did the right thing. Realize that the courts have already stated that the police do not have the obligation or ability to protect you. They can only enforce the laws and we are responsible for our own safety. If they happen to be in the right place at the right time, great. But until I can hire a cop (just like the ones our city mayors have)to protect my home and family, you do not have the right to tell me I cannot protect myself.

I'm not convinced the 2nd amendment refers to anything other than a militia - but I will re-examine that opinion in light of the Supreme Court's decision. Any reasonable person should be able to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is already infringed. Machine guns? Generally not allowed. How about mortars and hand grenades? Nope. Can't have them.

Imagine if our right to free speech was similarly regulated. What if you needed a background check and a waiting period to state your opinion? What if certain types of speech were only allowed in your home but you couldn't speak those thoughts in public? That is the situation with guns - certain types are very strictly regulated. Certain types can only be carried in public with a permit or under very strict circumstances. What about religion? What if you needed a government permit to wear a symbol of your religion in the street?

HOWEVER... any reasonable person should also be able to see that the proof that the DC Gun ban doesn't prevent gun violence is THE DC GUN BAN!. It is so ironic to see mothers who have lost their children in shootings arguing for the ban, since without the ban we would have children killed in shootings... oh wait... their children were shot DURING the ban.

If they want to reduce gun violence then ensure that criminals possessing and using guns face long prison sentences. Passing laws that *allow* long sentences isn't enough... you have to convict them and sentence them to prison terms that make people more afraid to be caught with a gun than without one on the streets of DC. Start sending people away for 10 or 15 years for simply possessing a gun illegally on the street and you'll see a drop in shootings. If they actually use it to hurt someone send them away for 25 or 30 years... game over - see you when you're 50 years old. Yes it will be expensive. But unlike the gun ban, it actually has a chance of reducing the number of shootings in DC.