Mike DeBonis is not pleased with DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s decision to appeal Parker to the Supreme Court. DeBonis writes:

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Have you been reading the papers, your honor? You don’t have to be Linda Greenhouse to realize this court will care for the sovereignty of the District about as much as it does for the sovereignty of high-school students to spout vaguely drug-related nonsense.

Whatever “sovereignty” issues DeBonis sees in Bong Hits 4 Jesus has precious little to do with the sovereignty of political jurisdictions such as D.C., so before we come down too hard on any particular judge, let’s take a look at the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, to see how much “sovereignty” the District is supposed to have:

The Congress shall have Power … To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States[.]

In other words, Mr. DeBonis, feel free to enjoy whatever de facto “sovereignty” Congress chooses to dole out to you from time to time, but just remember that when push comes to shove, you’re not sovereign, Congress pwns you. Get used to it.

Not sure who the constitutional-law genius was who had the mayor’s ear on this one. The macho we-gotta-stand-up-for-our-rights talk is admirable, but even Clarence Darrow wouldn’t take this case to a court where it not only probably won’t win, but threatens to impose bad law on the rest of the country, too.

Clarence Darrow’s job was to defend his causes, not just his own clients. Fenty’s job is to represent D.C. Now, if he were smart, he’d recognize that D.C.’s handgun ban is as stupid as it is unconstitutional, and push the City Council to repeal it even without the Parker suit. But we already know he’s not smart about that. Indeed, if he were he wouldn’t be mayor of that backward city - at least, not so long as mayors are elected by DC residents rather than, say, appointed by Congress. From the perspective of a person who thinks that disarming law-abiding citizens is a wonderful idea, and indeed, one so wonderful as to justify willfully violating the Bill of Rights, then of course Fenty should appeal the decision. He’s the mayor of D.C., for crying out loud; he’s not the “mayor” of the national gun control movement. They - read, the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Ownership, the Violent Policy Center, and the rest of the usual suspects at the national level - have a good reason to be nervous about this appeal. Fenty does not. As far as his city is concerned, the “worst” (best) possible outcome of an appeal is equal to the certain outcome if it did not. In fact, as I noted in an earlier post, it is arguable that some of the language in Parker is broader than necessary and is likely to be pared down on appeal even if the basic holding is upheld. In that sense, appealing the case is a win-win for the bad guys. If they win the appeal outright, the Second Amendment will be effectively stricken from the Constitution and they get their precious gun ban back. If they lose, they still get a narrower ruling that allows them more leeway than the current decision would.

As to the notion that the Supreme Court may impose the Parker rule on the rest of the country, I snort. Yes, a Supreme Court ruling that DC’s total handgun ban and extreme “safe” storage law violate the Second Amendment would indeed apply to the entire country, either immediately after Parker or as soon as a substantially identical case from a state made its way through the courts. But think about it: how many states (or cities within states) can you name that take their gun control to anywhere near the level that DC does? I can only think of one major city, Chicago, along with a few of its suburbs. New York City has a rather Byzantine licensing scheme that arguably operates as a de facto ban, so let’s count them too. That’s two whole cities, plus a few suburbs, that DeBonis describes as “the rest of the country.” That could be quite a problem for Fenty later in his career if he moved to New York or Chicago to run for mayor there. Otherwise, not so much.

Even if Fenty didn’t appeal the decision, that wouldn’t exactly guarantee that similar laws in Chicago and New York remain intact. While the Supreme Court hears only a small fraction of the cases brought to its attention, it generally pick up cases needed to resolve circuit splits. If Fenty dropped his appeal now (or, for that matter, if the Supreme Court denies certioriari), the result would be a 9-2 circuit split on a very fundamental question of law, to wit, whether one part of the Bill of Rights means Anything. At. All. It’s almost guaranteed that they’re going to hear this issue sometime, either under Parker itself now or under a clone case from NYC or Chicago tomorrow. But in the end, so what? It’s not Fenty’s problem if Chicago and New York City lose their draconian gun measures. It is his problem if DC does, especially if the conventional wisdom is that Fenty could have done more to preserve it. If the Supreme Court is the bad guy, Fenty gets to keep his gun ban for one more year, pays no political price for ultimately losing it, and may even get to perversely claim credit for the plummeting violent crime rate that ensues.

I can see it now, though: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, concurring, opt for an overreaching treatise establishing once and for all an individual right to bear arms,

On what planet is it “overreaching” for a court to rule that the constitutional “right of the people to [keep and] bear arms” means that the people have a right to bear arms?! Is it Mr. DeBonis’s position that the Parker plaintiffs are not really “people,” or that common firearms are not “arms?” ‘Splain, please.

…while Roberts and Kennedy somehow find a way to make the decision apply only to nonstate districts, possessions, and territories.

“Somehow find a way” is a strange way to describe the well-established doctrine that the Bill of Rights binds only the federal government, and not the states, until and unless the particular right being asserted has been “incorporated” under the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s not “somehow finding a way,” it’s Con Law 101. As DC is not a state, there is no need for the Court to determine whether or not its holding applies to the states - and arguably would indeed be “overreaching” if it did. That issue can wait for the next case, Parker II if you will, which will likely originate in NYC, Chicago or one of their hapless ‘burbs. That ought to be a relatively easy case, given that the heavy lifting will already have been done.

You really want to screw Guam like that, Adrian?

See my prior posts (and Patterico’s, for that matter), regarding mixing ignorance and sarcasm. Guam’s gun laws may be lame - and make no mistake about it, they are - but they’re not comparable to DC’s. In fact, they’re probably a pretty good indication of what DC’s gun laws may end up looking like in a post-Parker world. You really want to screw DC like that, Guam?