Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith offered the majority opinion, with Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson dissenting. The appeal was argued by attorney Alan Gura.

So what was being appealed?

The District has some of the most draconian restrictions in the land, barring ownership of handguns not registered before 1976 and reregistered in 1977. All firearms in the home must be kept unloaded and disassembled or locked, rendering them useless for self defense. Additionally, the panel majority noted, DC’s criminal code “prohibits carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home.”

The plaintiffs wished “to possess handguns in their respective homes for self-defense, and one “owns a registered shotgun, but wishes to keep it assembled and unhindered by a trigger lock or similar device,” the majority noted.

So what does this latest ruling mean? Has the law been overturned, and can DC residents now keep private arms? And will this spill over into a new era of firearms freedom for us all?

Um … not yet. Despite Brady Center president Paul Helmke’s hysterical denunciation of the decision as “judicial activism at its worst,” the ruling left the door open for all kinds of gun control. Though they found the DC blanket ban “unconstitutional,” the majority made a point to note “The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment,” and went so far as to opine that laws prohibiting concealed carry or requiring registration of firearms “do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.” That’s a pretty far cry from “shall not be infringed.”

So where is this going? Predictions are always dangerous, especially since new developments will undoubtedly take place in the months between my writing these words and the time this magazine reaches your hands. DC Mayor Adrian M. Fenty is livid, declaring this ruling an assault on “home rule” and vowing to fight it. That means it could go to the full court on appeal, or it could be submitted directly to the Supreme Court. Either could refuse to hear it, or if they agree to, either could decide with or against this latest ruling.

After all, there was a dissent on the panel, and Judge Henderson’s arguments may gain traction with her colleagues on the Court of Appeals, and perhaps with a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court.

This is not over. As the curse says, we live in interesting times.

Get More GUNS Rights