I believe if DC is to have its own Representation, but, prefers to regulate gun control, it is a matter of extending a 'State's Rights' provision, in that, it should have the self determination power of any other 'entity' that has federal representation.
There should not be an elected federal authority for DC that is controlled easily by legislative pressures. There would be no other federal elected official within the voting body that would have dictates upon them by federal regulation. It is a prejudice that should not hold up to judicial scrutiny.
Or/Also, once there was an elected official from DC in a federal legislative body, that person could add an amendment to reverse the previous 'gun bias.' Either way, it is still risky business until authority were returned to DC as if it were a State.
...The Senate took up legislation early in Mr. Obama's presidency that would expand the House of Representatives to 437 members. One member would represent Washington, D.C., and the other would represent Utah -- bringing that state's number of representatives from three to four. This move brought some bipartisan support to the bill since members expected D.C to elect a Democrat and Utah to elect a Republican.
The bill changed dramatically when the Senate added an amendment to its D.C. Voting Rights bill sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) that would force the District of Columbia to weaken its gun control laws. It stated that the District of Columbia could not "unduly burden" residents from owning guns. That amendment passed 62 to 36 in February 26, 2009, and the entire bill passed the Senate that same day.
Adding that language stalled efforts in the House to bring the voting bill to the floor. The move outraged the Washington City Council, the mayor and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (the city's non-voting delegate in the House).
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has been asked repeatedly by local press since that time when the House would take up the measure. He was forced time after time to give the same answer that they were working on a compromise, but no deal was imminent.
Anti-gun Democrats, including Norton herself, now accept that November elections are coming fast and this may be the last chance for some time to pass the bill. "There is nothing left to do but make the hard decision," Norton said in a statement. "I believe residents would not want us to pass up this once-in-a-life-time opportunity for the vote they have sought for more than two centuries."...