The Democrats were trying to give D.C. a voting Congressman. This law violates the Constitution but it is unlikely anyone would have standing to challenge it. On the other hand, the Constitution does prohibit the federal government from taking away people's right to bear arms. Congress (or its proxy the district) has done this in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Circuit recently struck down much of the gun ban (which prohibited a person from carrying a legal gun from one room in his house to another).
So, a proposal was made that if the citizens of the District were to get an extraconstitutional Congressman they should also get the Constitutional right to bear arms. This passed and caused the bill to be pulled by the Democratic leadership.
I saw Chris Van Hollen speak yesterday. He is a smooth, lefty, Congressman from Maryland (who went to Swarthmore-go figure) and his argumen was that because the Bush administration "violated the Constitution" by prosecuting the war on terror with too much vigor for the ferocious Congressman Van Hollen it should allow this blatant violation of the Constitution that agrandizes Democrat power.
My own position is that most residential D.C. should be ceded back to Maryland. The portion of Virginia ceded to the District is now in the Old Dominion's hand and produces corrupt, lefty Congressman Jim Moran. I'm sure Maryland's receded territory could produce an even more impressive representative.
So to sum up, the Democrats pulled a bill from the floor that violated the Constitution by giving a non-state congressional representation, only because of an amendment that gave individuals the right to own guns which is protected by the Constitution. I could not make it up.
Finally, I also note that recent surveys have indicated 1/3d of the district is illiterate. It has the highest expenditures on schools per pupil outside NY. This is what happens to a land governed by Congress. Give it back to Maryland.