Here is a good summary of the court decision.

It appears that Second Amendments rights are on track for a win!

“well regulated militia” = state militias not governed by the fed that can be used to overthrow a tyranical regime in time of need.
“right of the people to keep and bear arms” I believe is indipendent of a well regulated militia. I believe that this is you, me and anyone else with citizenship and good legal standing in the US. I believe that this is the interpretation clearly stated as it is a FACT that those living during the time the 2nd amendment was written clearly and those who wrote it did just that. How many politicians got into duels?

I’m torn. I believe that people should be allowed to carry concealed or unconcealed weapons anywhere they want in public. I however also believe that the vast majority of people in the US are not capable of responsibly wielding a firearm.

I’d rather be uncivilized and safe than civilized and a victim.

Mandatory military service ftw. It solves the issue of responsibility with sidearms. Put a bunch of civilians in a uniform in close proximity and you will quickly discover who should and who shouldn’t have a firearm on their person.

A historical note, the founding fathers remembered what the British occupying forces attempted to do in the opening days of the American Revolution. On April 19, 1775 the Brits, strategically wise, attempted to capture the arms and powder stores of the Massachusetts colonists that were stored at Concord… barely 19 miles away from occupied Boston. Forewarned, the colonists thwarted the Brits, removed the arms and powder, and ambushed the force sent to retrieve said arms. Had the Redcoats succeeded, Massachusetts would have been effectively disarmed and completely vulnerable. The Revolution would have ended before it really began, and long before there was any open cry for our nation’s independence. I think this lesson was chief in the minds of the writers of the Bill of Rights… its importance (the 2nd amendment) is also reflected by its sequence in the bill. Rights that one is unable to practically defend (and protect) are moot.

Militias were also an important part of British colonial life in America, for defense against Native Americans, the French, and the Spanish. Remember that the Seven Years War (or French and Indian War) ended in 1763, a little more than a dozen years prior to the Declaration of Independence. And the British did not go away, having firm control of Canada, Bermuda, and other colonies in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Their designs on retaking the colonies were seen by the War of 1812 as well as their scheming to influence Texas as a buffer and staging ground (after independence in 1836 and prior to annexation in 1845).

Because of these conditions, it is my opinion that an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment will serve to uphold more liberal (meaning more free/less restrictive) gun control legislation. In the other extreme, legislating from the bench, may do quite the opposite. The practice (legislating from the bench) robs the American people of their voice by subverting or usurping their elected representatives (Congress) whose job it is to legislate. The role of the court is to interpret law, not to legislate or to enforce (execute) the law. It’s also my opinion that no matter how the Court decides, many will be unhappy. Whether or not the Court will make a ruling making community militia membership a criterion for the ownership of arms may never come up in this case. I think that the case will focus on whether or not DC has a right to infringe the rights of gun ownership.