As expected....

Well, let's remember the brief shining moment when D.C. was, in theory, constitutional carry, and work for the day when it is again.

Guns were legal and nothing bad happened because of it. Hmm... Makes you think, if you're capable.

The last part of the article has to be incorrect. The judge's ruling addressed two distinct problems with DC's anti-gun policies. The second was their refusal to issue registration for persons who reside outside the district (e.g., defendant Edward Raymond), which under the first part of his ruling would allow them to carry. Assuming that the rest of the ruling stands, they're required to allow carry by non-residents, something several states also refuse to do.

Again, the Constitution FOR the United States grants "exclusive legislation" to Congress. This clause restricts all legislative acts in DC to acts made by Congress. The Constitution FOR the United States grants no delegative authority to Congress so Congress cannot set up the DC council and allow the council to make any laws. For the laws in question to be valid and Constitutional, Congress would have had to pass these laws.

The grant was made in order to keep other governments, primarily the states ceding the land, from passing laws in the area but the limitation does not contain any "reasonable" allowance for a local government to act.

We will never get back to a Constitutional system so long as idiots can't understand the clear and exact language of the Constitution. Without the Constitution, the federal government has absolutely zero powers. With the Constitution, the federal government has only those powers granted (10th Amendment) and no more. Every decision to the contrary is simply and easily proven wrong. The claim that the Framers left the word "expressly" out of the 10th is a red herring because there use of "expressly" would have been redundant in the clause and was thus unnecessary. The claim that the N&P clause expands the powers is so easily proven incorrect that it boggles the mind that anyone would believe such an unreasonable and illogical concept.

Would a judge issue an injunction like this if the review standard were Strict Scrutiny? I would think that an unrestricted right would trump any attempt by the government to water down a compelling state interest.

If the challenge to D.C.'s law met the Rational Basis requirements to get it thrown out in the first place, that would leave an assumption that the judge was leaning toward Intermediate Scrutiny.

the ruling included allowing carry by non-residents with carry permits... Could that extension lead to an ultimate overturn of the entire ruling on the basis that non-residents have no standing and/or to date, states have not had to acknowledge permits from othe states? Or, could only part of the ruling stand and part be thrown out ?

Technically, Congress does legislate the home-rule ordinances passed by DC municipal government -- albeit backhandedly.

Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 777, Pub. L. 93-198, title I, § 102 (codified as DC Code § 1-201.02. Purposes):

(a) Subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate legislative authority over the nation's capital granted by article I, § 8, of the Constitution, the intent of Congress is to delegate certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia; authorize the election of certain local officials by the registered qualified electors in the District of Columbia; grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government; modernize, reorganize, and otherwise improve the governmental structure of the District of Columbia; and, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the constitutional mandate, relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.