DC Council's Solution to Supreme Court Decision.

[deltecs]

DC's Council figures the current law would comply with the Supreme Court decision by including the words, "except for immediate defense" to the existing firearms language.  Just how one decides immediate is open to interpretation.  Is a locked and unloaded handgun in the home ready for immediate defense purposes?  Not according to the Supreme Court decision, so what then would, or would not, be considered "immediate defense" under the new proposed law?

Fox News

D.C. Council to Meet on Handgun Law
Wednesday, July 02, 2008

A D.C. Council committee plans to hold a roundtable discussion on the Supreme Court's ruling that the city's handgun ban is unconstitutional.

Wednesday's discussion is scheduled one day after council member Phil Mendelson introduced legislation that would formally end the handgun ban.

Mendelson's legislation is being co-sponsored by the 12 other council members. His bill would still require firearms in the home to be unloaded, disassembled and trigger-locked. But it adds an exemption for "immediate self-defense."

Gun rights advocates quickly questioned the wording of the bill, asking how residents would be able to anticipate an immediate need to defend themselves.

Mendelson said, if necessary, he will propose emergency action on the bill July 15 — the council's last legislative meeting before its summer recess.

[Dee]

The question of the month would be, what idiot would tell the police that his pistol was NOT unloaded and locked up, or his shotgun, or rifle was NOT dissembled and put away prior to needing it for defense. There is a 99.99% chance that unless some moron admits to it, the police will never know. There is a certain amount of common sense necessary here.
I have not heard of a city ordinance  that super-cedes Federal search and seizure laws concerning ones house. Unless of course you  disclude Bush's Patriot Act which does indeed nullify these laws.
All of this could be dealt with if the Feds would step up, but then again, they are the ones WANTING our guns in the first place.

[alsatian]

The propopsed DC council law you describe, if you described it accurately, would provide no relief of any sort to the citizens of DC.  If such a law were enacted, expect this law to IMMEDIATELY be challenged in their face by the NRA.  It is an idiotic path to take.  I think the very next step after the immediate challenge would be for someone to bring the people in Washington DC into court for willfully wasting public monies on speculative, idiological sparring with windmills.  It should be a crime to waste the milliions of legal fees that must be involved on something that is open and shut.  But, maybe the proposed legislation is not as offensive as you suggest.  I'm not disparaging your information, just holding it as a contigency.  Further, this really corresponds to contempt and disregard for the law of the land as ruled on by the supreme court.  The 5-4 decision, if you read the majority opinion, really roughs-up the entire thinking of the Washington DC line of thinking.