With a link to the docs....

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upholds the Second Amendment.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008-Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to
carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns;
provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but
authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents
to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a
trigger lock or similar device.Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman,
applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District
refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin
the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm inthe
home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits theuse of
functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but
the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an
individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on
handguns, as well as its requirement thatfirearms in the home be kept
nonfunctional even when necessary forself-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally
lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and
for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been
upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should
not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common
use at the time" finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the
carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied
toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on
handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of
"arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of
self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied
to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the
importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most
acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any
lawful firearm in thehome be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes
it impossiblefor citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of
self-defense andis hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral
argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced
arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will
satisfyhis prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the
District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a
license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.