SCOTUS Watch

[geezer]

This is a bizarre hill you've chosen to die on. The fact of the matter, and it's really not debatable, is that it's not a simple matter for many people to comply with many o these voter id laws. Why keep insisting that it's not much of a burden? If you want to argue that it's OK if it's a burden to combat some sort of fraud, fine, let's have at it. But beyond that, I really don't get it.

Because it's a classic example of why politics is so crazy and people like Trump can get traction. For those that aren't invested in hating the other side, the solution is obvious. Get people the IDs they need to function and check them when they go vote.

Well, no, because now you have a textbook case of government overreach and unnecessary spending when there's little evidence that there's a problem that needs to be solved.

My utter, complete and unrepentant loathing for Ted Cruz aside, I'm not "invested" in hating the right whatsoever. In fact, I find there *words* about personal liberty and fiscal responsibility to be persuasive. It's their diametrically opposed *actions* and thinly disguised political plays that I can't abide.

[noxiousdog]

Isn't that only the case if you think there's a problem with voter fraud? It's been a while since I looked, but I do remember seeing that there wasn't actually much voter fraud going on, and it seems like the potential negative impact to otherwise legitimate voters outweighs whatever gains we're making in the fight against voter fraud. Maybe I'm wrong and we've discovered a lot of voter fraud in the last few years that would be resolved by picture ID laws.

The other issue of making it easier to get picture IDs is a legitimate issue, but unless there's compelling evidence of voter fraud that would be resolved by picture ID laws, I think it's a separate discussion.

Or if I think there's a significant potential for voter fraud, which everyone acknowledges. They just say it's easier with absentee ballots.

It is odd that they'd do it one way, but not the other.

[ImLawBoy]

Isn't that only the case if you think there's a problem with voter fraud? It's been a while since I looked, but I do remember seeing that there wasn't actually much voter fraud going on, and it seems like the potential negative impact to otherwise legitimate voters outweighs whatever gains we're making in the fight against voter fraud. Maybe I'm wrong and we've discovered a lot of voter fraud in the last few years that would be resolved by picture ID laws.

The other issue of making it easier to get picture IDs is a legitimate issue, but unless there's compelling evidence of voter fraud that would be resolved by picture ID laws, I think it's a separate discussion.

Or if I think there's a significant potential for voter fraud, which everyone acknowledges. They just say it's easier with absentee ballots.

It is odd that they'd do it one way, but not the other.

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

[noxiousdog]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

[Rip]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

[ImLawBoy]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

I do when the boogeyman argument involves potentially interfering with people's Constitutional rights.

Fireball brought up before that the Ds in Texas have tried to insert provisions making it easier to get photo IDs into voter ID laws, but those don't pass. I assume the non-discriminatory reason for that is because it costs money to keep the offices open on weekends and later, and to open more offices. What's the solution then to making it easier for folks to get photo IDs? Shouldn't we have that in place before we interfere with Constitutional rights?

[ImLawBoy]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

And yet it is an issue. What's the solution?

[GreenGoo]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument

Great. You can solve that problem without ever touching a non-existent voter fraud problem. Have at it. Might need a new thread though.

[Rip]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

And yet it is an issue. What's the solution?

To add it and I for one have no issue with that.

It sounds silly that anyone would. It shouldn't cost as much as providing cell phones does.

[RunningMn9]

The Democrats should absolutely be pushing that message instead of Voter ID laws are bad.

But they are bad. They solve no problem, they serve no purpose, and they add an additional burden to a Constitutional right that isn't warranted - and they are almost always pushed because of WHO they inconvenience the most.

[GreenGoo]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

This. My kids can't even go to school without a photo ID. The fact that getting one isn't a simple matter for everyone is inexcusable.

We have to educate everyone and provide health services to everyone, adding an ID to that shouldn't even be an issue.

And yet it is an issue. What's the solution?

To add it and I for one have no issue with that.

It sounds silly that anyone would. It shouldn't cost as much as providing cell phones does.

It's not as expensive as a welfare check, or highways, or national defense. Are we randomly comparing it to things or...?

[geezer]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

[noxiousdog]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

[geezer]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

[noxiousdog]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

Shrug. If you say so.

If we live in a nation where citizens can't prove they are citizens that's a much, much bigger problem than voter ID laws.

You have to prove you're a citizen for medicaid (exceptions for some CHIP situations). You have to prove you're a citizen for WIC. You have to prove you're a citizen for Social Security. In many states you have to have a photo ID for unemployment.

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

[Combustible Lemur]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

Shrug. If you say so.

If we live in a nation where citizens can't prove they are citizens that's a much, much bigger problem than voter ID laws.

You have to prove you're a citizen for medicaid (exceptions for some CHIP situations). You have to prove you're a citizen for WIC. You have to prove you're a citizen for Social Security. In many states you have to have a photo ID for unemployment.

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Voting is the liberal, GUNS!

[noxiousdog]

If you think there's significant potential, but it doesn't actually exist, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and doing so in a way that has a serious impact on many people's Constitutional rights. I think there needs to be at least some sign of it being a real problem before taking that step.

I think the much larger problem is people don't have easy access to photo IDs. I have no issue solving that with a boogeyman argument.

So you now acknowledge that, in fact, it's NOT "...pretty easy to get an ID.. The arguments that a person can't find a single afternoon off IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to get a govenment ID is preposterous.

...the reality, in all but the most extreme cases, is that it's laziness."

I'm not picking on you, and I'm not trying to be a wanker, but I don't even understand what you're defending now. I guess we all agree that it should be easier to get an ID, for whatever reason, but in the absence of that, why are we making it harder to vote?

No, I still think it's preposterous in all but the most extreme cases (I have heard birth certificate stories), but I'm willing to remove that excuse.

OK. But you're wrong.

Shrug. If you say so.

If we live in a nation where citizens can't prove they are citizens that's a much, much bigger problem than voter ID laws.

You have to prove you're a citizen for medicaid (exceptions for some CHIP situations). You have to prove you're a citizen for WIC. You have to prove you're a citizen for Social Security. In many states you have to have a photo ID for unemployment.

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Voting is the liberal, GUNS!

That makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Fireball]

All those over 18 docs have picture ID. That's the whole point of list B.

Voter's registration cards do not include photographs.

[Fireball]

Because it's a classic example of why politics is so crazy and people like Trump can get traction. For those that aren't invested in hating the other side, the solution is obvious. Get people the IDs they need to function and check them when they go vote.

Look, the point of voter ID laws for Republicans is not to secure the ballot. It's to put an obstacle between likely-Democratic voters and the ballot box that middle class white voters the Republicans rely upon both won't be hindered by and won't consider onerous, because having a valid, up-to-date photo ID is a standard part of life for middle class white people but not for millions of less prosperous Americans.

In some states, they are even more egregious in targeting likely Democrats by limiting the IDs that are acceptable to ones that Republicans are more likely to have (like concealed carry IDs) but not ones that Democrats are more likely to have (like photo IDs for college students at state universities). Some states provide no exemptions for people who cannot get a photo ID because they don't have a birth certificate — an issue that mostly impacts elderly black people in Southern states... gee, I wonder who they vote for?

Is it reasonable to expect a homebound elderly person who does not drive and has no means to get to a driver's license office to get a new ID issued that she would only need for voting to have an up-to-date and valid photo ID in order to cast a ballot?

[RunningMn9]

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Because requiring a photo ID to get Medicaid isn't designed to make it harder for the supporters of your political opponents to vote for your political opponents. Which is the sole purpose of Voter ID laws.

[GreenGoo]

How come we haven't heard any outrage over that?

Because requiring a photo ID to get Medicaid isn't designed to make it harder for the supporters of your political opponents to vote for your political opponents. Which is the sole purpose of Voter ID laws.

Not to mention medicaid not being a right specifically named in the constitution.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas voter ID law allowed to remain in place for now.

The Supreme Court has refused for now to block a strict voter identification law in Texas that critics say will make it harder for as many as 600,000 registered voters who lack driver's licenses to cast a ballot this year.

The justices turned down an appeal from civil rights lawyers who said the court should put on hold the requirement for showing a driver's license or U.S. passport.

They cited three separate rulings in which a federal judge and two appeals court panels said the Texas law violated the Voting Rights Act because it has a discriminatory effect on blacks and Latinos.

But the law has remained in force while the full U.S. 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans weighs the state's appeal.

In Friday's order, the high court said it would be open to considering another emergency appeal if the 5th Circuit has not ruled by July 20.
...
Despite the court’s decision, a lawyer who filed the appeal said he was pleased with the deadline set by the justices.

[Isgrimnur]

Contraception mandate

The Supreme Court on Monday avoided issuing a major ruling on a challenge brought by religiously affiliated non-profit groups to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, wrote that they were not deciding the case on the merits but instead sent the case back down to the lower courts for opposing parties to work out a compromise.
...
In its ruling Monday, the court said it is not deciding whether the religious exercise of the challengers has been substantially "burdened."

[Defiant]

Unnamed sources have told Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard that Clarence Thomas is considering retiring from the Supreme Court after the 2016 election. They say Thomas never planned to stay on the Court until he died, and has been considering retirement for a while.

link

[Holman]

Unnamed sources have told Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard that Clarence Thomas is considering retiring from the Supreme Court after the 2016 election. They say Thomas never planned to stay on the Court until he died, and has been considering retirement for a while.

link

Would he really?

That would allow a two-term President Clinton to replace Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer, leaving Roberts the sole conservative and Alito the sole reactionary.

[Defiant]

That would allow a two-term President Clinton to appoint replacements for Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer that would then be held up indefinitely by a Republican congress, leaving Roberts the sole conservative and Alito the sole reactionary.

FTFY

[Canuck]

I hope Clinton replaces them all with 40 year olds.

[Jaymann]

I just had to make reply #667.

[Isgrimnur]

Declines to hear assault weapon ban case:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the state of Connecticut's assault weapons ban brought by gun rights groups, the court announced Monday.

Laws in Connecticut and New York prohibit semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman in Orlando, Florida who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on June 12 before he was shot and killed by police.
...
By declining to hear the challenge, the Supreme Court left in place a ruling banning semi-automatic weapons in the state that was passed after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 20 students and six educators dead on Dec. 4, 2012.

A group of Second Amendment rights activists sued the state in federal court, claiming that the law violated their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The plaintiffs had argued that the ban violated the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that said individuals have a right to gun ownership for self-protection. Two lower courts had previously thrown out the challenge.
...
In October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

[geezer]

It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

[coopasonic]

It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

Just one thread off, but totally in the right neighborhood.

[malchior]

Hurray! Even more police state!.

[GreenGoo]

Hurray! Even more police state!.

What in the fuck?!

[geezer]

It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

Just one thread off, but totally in the right neighborhood.

Yeah - I guess it could have gone in the Scalia thread (or even the Trump thread), but I was prompted by the idea that the court is now not hearing things like assault rifle bans, effectively certifying them, and I'm just feeling like they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It's not like Hillary is going nominate someone more conservative.

Are they are shameless enough, though, to block an appointment for ANOTHER four years, and just pretend like all that stuff about "letting the people have a say" via the election never actually happened?

[El Guapo]

It's becoming more and more bizarre that the Republicans won't allow a vote on Garland. The practical choice would seem to be to take the moderate they've been offered...

Just one thread off, but totally in the right neighborhood.

Yeah - I guess it could have gone in the Scalia thread (or even the Trump thread), but I was prompted by the idea that the court is now not hearing things like assault rifle bans, effectively certifying them, and I'm just feeling like they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. It's not like Hillary is going nominate someone more conservative.

No, it still makes sense to wait until 2017 and hope that the next President is republican. This denial of cert has no bearing on how the future Supreme Court might rule on this issue. I don't know Garland's views on the second amendment, but I would guess he'd be vastly more likely than any GOP pick to uphold CT's assault weapon ban. So you punt on the case now, and then if Trump wins, then bring a new challenge after his nominee is confirmed, and you have a pretty good chance of getting the ban thrown out.

[msduncan]

Declines to hear assault weapon ban case:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the state of Connecticut's assault weapons ban brought by gun rights groups, the court announced Monday.

Laws in Connecticut and New York prohibit semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman in Orlando, Florida who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on June 12 before he was shot and killed by police.
...
By declining to hear the challenge, the Supreme Court left in place a ruling banning semi-automatic weapons in the state that was passed after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 20 students and six educators dead on Dec. 4, 2012.

A group of Second Amendment rights activists sued the state in federal court, claiming that the law violated their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The plaintiffs had argued that the ban violated the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that said individuals have a right to gun ownership for self-protection. Two lower courts had previously thrown out the challenge.
...
In October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

Dipping my head back in R&P to give my opinion on the SCOTUS not taking up this challenge.

Since Heller, there have been several similar actions by the court. I believe that the direction the court is taking is to follow precedent of an 1800s case that basically ruled that the 2nd Amendment restricts the Federal government but not the states. This leaves the states to enact what laws they wish. I don't agree with this interpretation, but as the divide grows between urban northeast, the Pacific coast, and the rest of the Southern and heartland states -- perhaps this is the solution that provides the least amount of trouble.

Since Washington DC was a federal district, it was not allowed to outright ban firearms under Heller.

[Scraper]

Hurray! Even more police state!.

What in the fuck?!

This is just one example of the right not giving a shit about the constitution.

[malchior]

It doesn't even make sense - they've just given the police not only cover to conduct illegal stops but a reason to do it. It is bat shit. Luckily no one is talking about this because the CT assault rifle thing came down and apparently the media can't walk and chew gum at the same.

[RunningMn9]

Dipping my head back in R&P to give my opinion on the SCOTUS not taking up this challenge.

Since Heller, there have been several similar actions by the court. I believe that the direction the court is taking is to follow precedent of an 1800s case that basically ruled that the 2nd Amendment restricts the Federal government but not the states. This leaves the states to enact what laws they wish. I don't agree with this interpretation, but as the divide grows between urban northeast, the Pacific coast, and the rest of the Southern and heartland states -- perhaps this is the solution that provides the least amount of trouble.

Since Washington DC was a federal district, it was not allowed to outright ban firearms under Heller.

I thought Heller made it clear that *some* things could be banned (even by the feds), but that *all* things couldn't be banned (by anyone), and that some things couldn't be banned (by anyone). The reasoning in Heller was the centerpiece of the recent ruling supporting the concealed carry ban in CA (I believe, I don't follow the topic as closely as others).

I'm torn between yelling "States Rights!!" and pointing out that the 14th Amendment ensures that the rights you have as a US citizen cannot be infringed by a State either.

[El Guapo]

Declines to hear assault weapon ban case:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the state of Connecticut's assault weapons ban brought by gun rights groups, the court announced Monday.

Laws in Connecticut and New York prohibit semi-automatic weapons like the one used by the gunman in Orlando, Florida who killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on June 12 before he was shot and killed by police.
...
By declining to hear the challenge, the Supreme Court left in place a ruling banning semi-automatic weapons in the state that was passed after the Sandy Hook shooting that left 20 students and six educators dead on Dec. 4, 2012.

A group of Second Amendment rights activists sued the state in federal court, claiming that the law violated their constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense. The plaintiffs had argued that the ban violated the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that said individuals have a right to gun ownership for self-protection. Two lower courts had previously thrown out the challenge.
...
In October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment.

Dipping my head back in R&P to give my opinion on the SCOTUS not taking up this challenge.

Since Heller, there have been several similar actions by the court. I believe that the direction the court is taking is to follow precedent of an 1800s case that basically ruled that the 2nd Amendment restricts the Federal government but not the states. This leaves the states to enact what laws they wish. I don't agree with this interpretation, but as the divide grows between urban northeast, the Pacific coast, and the rest of the Southern and heartland states -- perhaps this is the solution that provides the least amount of trouble.

Since Washington DC was a federal district, it was not allowed to outright ban firearms under Heller.

The problem is that back in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment does apply to the states. Given that, unless I'm missing something the states are restricted in their gun laws (by the Heller interpretation of the second amendment) at least as much as the federal government is, which means that the states aren't free to enact what laws they wish.

Of course, as RM9 says the Heller opinion allows the government some room to regulate guns (and ban some subset thereof). So if Clinton gets to appoint Scalia's replacement, one would imagine that the SCOTUS would expand that room to regulate / ban guns substantially.