The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington DC’s ridiculous handgun law, citing of all things the Second Amendment.

In all seriousness what is intriguing is “why’ they did, and even more curious is what the Dissenting Justice and the City Cited as their justification to keep the law.

D.C.’s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District’s longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.

The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language on the right to bear arms.

Right there strikes to the heart of the issue.  Most gun control lovers cite the militia provision in the Second Amendment as proof that private gun ownership is not covered.  But the Appeals Court ruled the opposite, which is the main argument pro gun groups have consistently maintained:

“We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Silberman said in the 58-page majority ruling.

In the majority opinion, Silberman wrote that federal and state courts have been divided about the extent of protections covered by the Second Amendment. Some have sided with the District’s position, that a militia means just that. Others have ruled that the amendment is broader, covering the individual rights of people who own guns for hunting or self-defense.

The Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment in 1939, but it did not hold that the right to bear arms meant specifically that a person could do so.

The Opinion states: