Victory for the Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners in D.C.

HOORAY! The Washington Post reports:

The 2 to 1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down sections of a 1976 law that bans city residents from having handguns in their homes. The court also overturned the law's requirement that shotguns and rifles be stored disassembled or with trigger locks. The court grounded its unprecedented ruling in the finding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond militias to individuals. The activities the Second Amendment protects, the judges wrote, "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

It's about time that the courts started recognizing what the Founding Fathers' true intent was in crafting the second amendment. They were quite clear that it was an individual right, in spite of the way that some idiots have tried to interpret the wording of the amendment. Of course, the socialists at the Post don't see it that way:

If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled.

It is ridiculous to think that this ruling will mean more people killed or wounded. Someone who is going to use a gun in a crime could care less what the gun control laws say. They only have the effect of disarming law-abiding people. But I do hope that they are correct that every gun control law is now imperiled.

John Lott has more on this.

Read the court decision here. One important exercept:

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 either resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).