DC circuit court finds 2nd amendment individual right *not* dependent on actual membership in “well-regulated militia”

This is huge.  As ace points out, likely gonna wind up in the Supreme Court.

Bring it on.

The case was a challenge to 3 DC gun restriction laws, and the ruling invalidates them all. 

Ruled unconstitutional:  A 31-year-old law that prevents handgun registration; a law that requires rifles and shotguns to be either disassembled or disabled when being stored; and a law that requires a permit to carry a gun in your own home.

I never could understand why anti-gun people couldn’t comprehend that in 1776, guys like me were the militia.

Two key paragraphs in the 2-1 decision.

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).

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.

A correct interpretation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Good for them.  The dissenting judge argued the 2nd didn’t apply because DC isn’t a state.  Which is a pretty lame argument.