Yea, we can all go out and buy an AK47

A divided three judge panel of the D.C. Circuit has held that gun control laws (or at least those in D.C.) are unconstitutional. From the opinion:

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).

Question: Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled on the constitutionality of gun control, and didn't they say it was constitutional? A Google search tells me that the controlling case before the Supreme Court was United States v. Miller et al. in 1939. There, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protected the rights of the well regulated militias of the states, not the right of individual citizens, to keep and bear arms. The ruling today comes to exactly the opposite conclusion.

I guess the D.C. Circuit has learned something from Bush. It's okay to ignore settled law and buck the Supreme Court.

We have truly become the land of the lawless.