Forced to get with the program

The Washington Post has the story of the legislative fight over the District having to repeal its long-standing handgun ban, now that the Supreme Court has struck it down:

District officials, coping with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw out the city's handgun ban, have drafted legislation that would do away with several remaining firearms restrictions, including safe-storage requirements and a provision that bars ownership of semiautomatic pistols.
The legislation could come up for a vote in the D.C. Council as early as Tuesday, the same day the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would virtually end local handgun control in the District.
Thirty-two years after the first generation of elected D.C. officials under home rule enacted the nation's toughest gun control statutes, banning handguns entirely, the current leaders face a different political and legal climate and appear resigned to debating how best to have a less restrictive law.
Although the move by the city to ease handgun restrictions coincides with the House effort to virtually strip the District of its power to regulate firearms, Mendelson said officials are not seeking to placate members of Congress. He said the proposed changes, which he will urge the council to pass Tuesday, result from a careful review of the Supreme Court decision in the weeks since it was issued.
The council proposal does not give residents blanket approval to own semiautomatic pistols, which have become the most popular kinds of handguns. It would ban magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It also would repeal a regulation barring a gun owner from registering more than one pistol. In addition, the legislation would do away with the requirement that handgun registrants submit their weapons to DC police for ballistics testing.
When the city passed the emergency legislation allowing residents to register revolvers, officials stayed away from the hot-button topic of semiautomatics. Because the court ruling did not specifically address a separate D.C. law that bans semiautomatic handguns, that restriction was left in place. A new federal lawsuit has since been filed against the District, alleging that the ban on semiautomatics violates the Supreme Court decision.
The emergency legislation also required revolvers to be kept unloaded in homes and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks. Under the law, revolvers can be loaded and fired only if the owner is in reasonable fear of imminent harm from an assailant. Those storage requirements also are a focus of the new lawsuit.
The National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist predicted that the legislation will not affect the House debate over the bill to virtually end local gun control in the District. Among other things, the House bill would allow semiautomatic rifles.
Some critics say House leaders, who have supported the District's quest for more autonomy, are allowing a vote on the gun bill only because they assume it will go nowhere in the Senate.
"I think the Democrats are trying to give cover to members in pro-gun districts, allowing them to take a meaningless vote," said Brian McNicoll, a spokesman for Representative Tom Davis (R-Virginia).
The House leadership agreed to allow a vote on the DC gun bill after Republicans appeared to be gaining enough support from conservative Democrats to bring a similar measure to the floor themselves. Such a move would be deeply embarrassing to the House leadership and could fracture the party's House contingent.

Rico says it's just more politics-as-usual, giving the politicians cover while not solving the problem.