wow! DC gun owners can now "come out of the shadows".
I should start taking bets whether the full circuit will let this go.
But the wording alone - I'm truly amazed!
If you read all 50+ pages of the "for" part of the decision, it becomes (IMO) obvious that they spent a lot of time working to create an "appeal-proof" decision. They could have made their points in a page or two and left it at that, but instead, they went to incredible effort to build an ironclad case for why they decided the way they did.
Contrast that with the 20 odd (and I do mean "odd"!) pages in the dissent, which create the impression of a panicked effort prove an obvious lie, comically reminiscent of Lou Costello's hilarious blackboard "proof" that 2+2=22.
The basis of the dissent seems to be that the Second serves only to provide the states the power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms -- but, at the same time, she makes another assertion, namely that the Bill of Rights only applies to the states (thus leaving the poor bastards living in the district without any Constitutional protections, I presume).
Can you say "mutually exclusive conditions"? I knew you could!