# legal rationale for gun control in D.C.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-rationale-for-gun-control-in-d-c/691967>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 29, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-rationale-for-gun-control-in-d-c/691967 "2014-06-29T22:39:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-rationale-for-gun-control-in-d-c/691967/1 "2014-06-29T22:39:28Z")

</div>

as I understand it, SCOTUS ruled that gun control laws don’t violate the 2nd amendment because states form the militias it refers to and thus have the authority to regulate arms within their own territories.

But what about Washington D.C., which is directly ruled by congress? It has some pretty strict gun control laws of it’s own, and the idea of the national capitol forming it’s own non-national military force (aka militia) seems pretty absurd, even from a legal standpoint.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-rationale-for-gun-control-in-d-c/691967/2 "2014-06-29T23:00:31Z")

</div>

I don’t have an answer, but this may aid readers at home: [Gun laws in the District of Columbia - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\
**Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-rationale-for-gun-control-in-d-c/691967/3 "2014-06-30T00:27:44Z")

</div>

> [@dstarfire](#):
>
> as I understand it, SCOTUS ruled that gun control laws don’t violate the 2nd amendment because states form the militias it refers to and thus have the authority to regulate arms within their own territories.
> 
> But what about Washington D.C., which is directly ruled by congress? It has some pretty strict gun control laws of it’s own, and the idea of the national capitol forming it’s own non-national military force (aka militia) seems pretty absurd, even from a legal standpoint.

I think you’ve made a lot of errors in those two paragraphs. Primarily, the Court ruled that there is an individual right to own a gun in DC, subject to reasonable restrictions.

> **[District of Columbia v. Heller](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)**
>
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trig...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\
**Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-rationale-for-gun-control-in-d-c/691967/4 "2014-06-30T04:54:37Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> I think you’ve made a lot of errors in those two paragraphs.

Yeah, I meant to do a bit more research before posting, but somehow ended up posting when I closed out the tab. I was a bit distracted at the time. Guess I’m back to square one for understanding this mess.