[Yo-Yo]

This is a great ruling, but I do see an issue - I wish this was a ruling against a state's ban on weapons. Why? Because the 2A has not yet been incorporated as applying to the states as most of the BOR has been. DC is a federal district, not a state. It is already clear the BOR applies against the feds.

Keep in mind that even if the SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, that will not automatically nullify all gun control laws.

The 1st amendment protects free speech, but there are limits to that right, including the infamous shouting 'fire' in a crowded building, and banning 'hate speech' (grrrrrr!)

This should allow all gun control laws, such as so-called 'assault weapon bans' to be challenged in court, but each one will have to be individually adjudicated.

[JamesP81]

but each one will have to be individually adjudicated.

I can live with that.

[robertpaulsen]

"Keep in mind that even if the SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, that will not automatically nullify all gun control laws."

Good news and bad news. The good news: Some future SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

The bad news: "Arms" in the second amendment is defined by SCOTUS as single-shot, muzzle-loaded rifles ... only.

[El Gato]

The 1st amendment protects free speech, but there are limits to that right, including the infamous shouting 'fire' in a crowded building,

But you can shout fire in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. The government cannot tape your mouth shut because you might shout fire when there is no fire, which would be analogous to gun control, which bans keeping and bearing guns because of what you might do with them.

In both cases they seek to prevent harm, but end up preventing people from doing good. (Although many gun controllers don't think defending yourself is a "Good Thing", they'd rather you just give up your stuff, and possibly your life, to the freelance socialists)