"They said it would be premature to act before the Supreme Court has
decided whether to review the appeals court decision."

The appeals court struck down two provisions, the handgun ban and the
long gun storage requirement. DC only asked the Supreme Court to review
the handgun ban. They did not ask the Supreme Court to review the long
gun storage requirement, and the deadline for asking has passed. The
Supreme Court won't be reviewing this issue, so there's nothing to wait
for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/
AR2007092401590.html

Tuesday, September 25, 2007; Page B04

SUPREME COURT GUN CASE
City Asks Appeals Court To Preserve Rifle Rule

Attorneys for the District government told a federal appeals court
yesterday that the city's requirement that shotguns and rifles be kept
unloaded or outfitted with trigger locks should remain in effect until
the Supreme Court decides whether it will consider the constitutionality
of the gun law.

This spring, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down
as a violation of the Second Amendment the city's virtual ban on handguns
and a related provision on how rifles and shotguns must be stored in
private homes. However, the court kept the law in effect while the city
appealed.

Attorneys for the residents who challenged the law pointed out that the
city's petition asked the court to consider whether "the District of
Columbia's longstanding law banning handguns but authorizing private
possession of rifles and shotguns violates the Second Amendment." The
residents' attorney said the city was, in effect, conceding the
unconstitutionality of what they called the "functional firearms ban."

District attorneys denied that, saying that the city has recognized that
residents may keep rifles and shotguns as a form of self-defense but that
the law "is more fairly characterized as a safe-storage provision."

They said it would be premature to act before the Supreme Court has
decided whether to review the appeals court decision.

-- Robert Barnes

--
How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect
yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that
is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable
value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe
it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to
repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
- Jeff Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"