While they explicitly stated that the right to own weapons is not unlimited, they also explicitly ruled that the ownership of firearms for 'immediate self defense' is a constitutionally protected individual right and not connected to membership in any militia or other organization.

The reasoning that is based on is that handguns are the weapon of choice for home defense. Restricting their ownership and availability via requirements that they be kept unloaded, locked up, or disassembled violates a constitutional right to protect yourself in your home with appropriate force.

While I haven't finished reading the entire opinion, some notable excerpts:

The stories don't link to the opinion yet. Here's a Link

I too, support this ruling.

Will this ruling touch off any consequences outside of D.C.?

I'm happy about this ruling. If they'd gone for the ban I'd be unable to take my shirt off while in D.C. Because, y'know... GUN SHOW *flex*

Good ruling. I don't personally have a gun for protection in my home, but I can understand the idea of owning a gun for protection.

Plus, if guns were made illegal, the only people that would have them would be the people who are willing to get them illegally.

Chicago's watching this closely as well, but it's important to note that the ruling specifically deals with DC's laws, which are federal laws by nature and not state or municipal laws.

Pretty much. The other regulations are more or less in tact, but out right bans are gone.

(startles awake) The Constitution was actually UPHELD?!?!

Absolutely love this ruling...allows for sanity of gun check laws and such that I fully support, but shuts the door on blatant bans, which I have been against for about 25 years as having no valid grounds...

A good sane ruling, and I love it when the court has the guts to actually uphold the constitution and not claim that its out of date just because its an old document.

And Robear - question - not sure what stats you would have to support your comment that we will simply see an increase in violence by legal gun owners (and to me, violence would be defined not as self-defense)?

My amusing note of the day from the cnn article btw...

Also, as shown in Richmond, VA - the key to gun issues is just to actually utilize the existing laws on the book for gun crimes. Its that simple to me.

Good ruling imho.

Judge, Jury & Executioner

Very well put.

Violence absolutely includes self-defense, it's defined by the act, not the motivation, but as I noted, this is my guess for the record. With more weapons in circulation, we will see more accidental discharges, more heat of the moment crimes involving guns, and more shootings in self-defense. It's not hard to understand and it'll be easy to tell if I'm wrong. Care to make your own prediction?

My contention is that without proper training and social/civic responsibilities, gun ownership is a right without restraint. I support gun ownership, I own one myself. But I feel that our constitutional right was tied inextricably to membership, training and service in a local militia, and I think there are very good reasons for that that still apply today. I was saddened to see an argument from the late 19th century (the fictional idea that there exists a militia that all non-militia members belong to) applied to the late 18th century, when people did indeed have a social and civic responsibility to belong to the militia and could be called into it at any time in most areas. I can see why they did it, but it's historically inaccurate. This definitely falls into the category of the Living Constitution, which is bizarre for avowed constructionalists like Scalia. But then, they let ideology run in 2000 as well; that's why they are there, I suppose, although I can't find any enthusiasm for their interpretation of the right.

So you support the interpretation that:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, X.

where X is apparently, shall be completely eliminated based on their geographic location?

Because if we can restrict rights based on geography, there's a certain wang-shaped state that's due to lose its representation in presidential elections.

Though I can see how Robear's concern that interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right might be disconcerting to him, I must also state that the militia restriction has its own significant and historical problems as well. Specifically, it is that very interpretation that allowed the country's first gun control laws. That may not seem so bad until you recognize that the intention of those laws were to keep the capability of self defense out of the hands of recently freed slaves. In short, if we are to take the strict interpretation that the right to bear arms came with it the implicit understanding that one was to belong to a militia, one must also recognize the primary purpose of such a militia in the antebellum nation: to put down a slave uprising.

Now that may very well have been the intention of the Founding Fathers, but it was not at all made clear. But just as the original intent of the framers was not to include blacks, women, and the unlanded into the voting public, I think it is fair to now include such into the franchise of self defense as well.

Nice contribution to the discussion.

Fooled by similar avatars! Point withdrawn.