[Tinfoil Hat Mode=ON]

Glenn Reynolds discusses this Washington Post article about Orrin Hatch's proposal to repeal the D.C. gun ban. Glenn terms this as evidence (as I noted below in "A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once") that we're in a "rollback phase" of gun control, and cites as evidence the Violence Policy Center's mouthpiece Matt Nosanchuk's rather tepid proclaimation that there is no evidence that greater access to guns reduces crime (while D.C.'s gun ban most emphatically suggests the reverse.)

But my question is: Why now?

There is currently a civil lawsuit pending in Federal Court challenging the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds - and it looks like a good one. Interestingly, the NRA seems to be attempting to throw a monkey-wrench into the suit in their (choose one:) A) fear of getting a bad decision, or B) fear of losing support income should the Second Amendment be legally defined as an individual right. The NRA is also suing, but using reasons other than the Second Amendment (as they are wont to do). Complete coverage of this is available over at AlphaPatriot's site.

So, is Orrin Hatch trying to repeal the ban to negate these two lawsuits? Is he doing it at the behest of the NRA? Why now?

[Tinfoil Hat Mode=OFF]

Update:

I'm not alone. Julian Sanchez of Reason Online thinks the timing stinks, too.