To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).This is huge. This makes the DC gun bans unconstitutional. The ruling states that the right existed before the government recognized it. It goes further:
Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.That statement from a constitutional perspective is huge. It means that service in a militia is not necessary to enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms. As the Second applies to Washington DC's ban on firearms, the Court says this:
"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Whoo-Hoo! The Second Amendment, along with the people of Washington DC, won a huge victory.
Hat tip to How Appealing.