District of Columbia v. Heller

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As promised, here is my best analysis after having read the Supreme Court decision.  I did not quite read it in its entirety, but I've read enough to know what this means: our gun rights are not in jeopardy no matter what happens over the next several years.

What the decision means now:

DC must begin issuing handgun permits ASAP and cannot require guns of any type to be stored locked and disassembled.  DC will likely become as permissive about guns as Illinois (excluding Chicago), requiring the person who buys a handgun to have a permit, submit to fingerprinting, and register their gun.  So law abiding citizens in DC will now be able to buy a gun and carry it loaded while in their homes.

What is no longer allowed?

Outright bans of "common" guns such as handguns, rifles, shotguns and the requirement that they be unloaded when stored in the home.

So what is still OK?

This will likely be hashed out over the next decade, but it appears now that gun registration, bans of specific guns (like machine guns), and many other federal laws will remain untouched.  Crazy people will still not be able to buy guns, and neither will felons, at least legally.

What did SCOTUS say of the 2nd Amendment in general?

They said it means we have the individual right to own guns.  This right does not require us to be in a militia.  They did say that the first clause and second clause of the amendment are related, in that giving us the right to own guns individually would allow us to form a militia should the government get out of control.  The American Revolution was not well organized, but we still won.  Scalia also remarked that the 2nd Amendment could be modified to read "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does "bear arms" mean?

This is another question that remains unresolved.  Scalia's opinion indicates that he likely would have opted to allow carrying of a gun.  The opinion does, however, explicitly say that concealed carry can be regulated/prohibited.  They court was silent on open carry, so that may very well be OK, but we will need a test case.  Will someone please volunteer to walk around DC with a shotgun strapped to your back?

What laws are likely to be challenged?

Many of them.  I'm sure prohibitions on concealed carry will be challenged even though I don't think these will necessarily be overturned.  I think there is a decent chance that assault weapon bans in states like California could be in danger.  Chicago's gun ban will likely be overturned quickly, as it was very similar to DCs.  

Who won?

Freedom.

Who lost?

DC Mayor Fenti, who was so adamant in sending this case to the Supreme Court despite the mayors of other cities warning him that it would foil all of their efforts.  His stock just dropped.