A divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel today ruled that the District of Columbia's gun restrictions violates individuals' second amendment rights.

Here is a link to the opinion, and here is the summary provided by the majority:

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 resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

And on an additional interesting note, Howard Bashman reports the majority also "rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State."

Eugene Volokh believes its very likely the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court by 2008, but it will leave plenty of room for less comprehensive gun bans, and will not "resolve the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment to cover state regulations." And he notes it could easily have an impact on the '08 elections.

Tim Lynch at the CATO Institute agrees it will likely end up before the Supreme Court, and will finally give us a definitive ruling on the 2nd Amendment and if it's just about militias, or if it does guarantee an individual right to bear arms.

And Ace of Spades asks if this may render Rudy Giuliani's position on gun control moot. I think if the Supreme Court delays hearing the case, this would only intensify what a huge negative Rudy's position on gun control is among conservatives.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take up this case before a Democrat president is possibly elected, who would appoint a few left-wing judges to the court and essentially change what the 2nd Amendment means. The court hasn't discussed this issue since United States v. Miller in 1939, so this is a huge deal. And considering the number of lame Republican top-tier candidates, and that the Supreme Court is seriously turning into a hospice for judges, we can only hope the court hears this case forthwith.