Decius wrote:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Unfortunately its a narrow margin.

Not only is it a narrow margin, it is such a limited decision it may be a repeat of Bush v. Gore in that it has no application to other questions. All that was established here is that DC's complete ban of handguns, and requirement that rifles/shotguns be either unassembled or trigger locked was excessive. If DC wants to turn around tomorrow and say, "$5000 registration fee, waiver for police officers or for individuals granted a waiver by the police," that would be completely acceptable under the ruling.

More significantly, had this case come up two years ago, I would not have been surprised had O'Conner gone the other way, and brought Kennedy with her making it a 6-3 decision the other direction.

There is also question about whether the same decision applies to a state law which inserts a militia clause, or even if it applies to other municipal laws such as Chicago or San Francisco, which operate under state code rather than direct federal law.

RE: Supreme Court upholds 2nd Amendment [PDF]