Does this make sense?

Despite the apparent victory for freedom in Parker v. DC, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has introduced S. 1001, titled "A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia." This bill would repeal the district's insanely restrictive firearm legislation, which (judging from the extreme levels of violent crime in the city) has been not only draconian, but utterly ineffective, as well.

While this would seem to be a good idea, the reality may not be so simple. What Parker v. DC has to offer American gun owners is the distinct possibility that it will reach the Supreme Court. There it will hopefully lead, for the first time ever, to a definitive SCOTUS ruling on whether the right protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, or a mythical "collective right" (the civilian disarmament crowd likes to tout the United States v. Miller ruling of 1939 as having already decided that issue on the "collective right" side, but the individual right vs. "collective right" issue was never addressed in that case).

However, if DC's insanity is struck down by legislative means before the Supreme Court has a chance to hear and rule on Parker v. DC, the reason for hearing the case disappears, and those of us who do not live in Washington DC have gained nothing. Although introduced only two days ago, the bill already has 41 cosponsors. Perhaps more puzzlingly, the NRA seems to be applauding this development.

Perhaps the NRA has a good reason for pushing this--perhaps there is reason to be doubtful of a favorable outcome in the Supreme Court at this time, and the NRA believes the gun rights movement would be best served by biding its time.

On the other hand, perhaps, as some have claimed, the NRA would rather retain its wealth and power, by continuing to be seen fighting the battle against gun legislation, rather than risk losing that importance by winning the battle.