I'm just starting to catch up with this story-
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."
Michelle Malkin links to others covering the legal ins and outs, finishing with this from Alphecca-
Don't look for any sudden changes in DC until all the appeals dust settles and even if it is determined that it is an individual right to bear arms, no doubt DC will adopt NYC style permit requirements -- that is that you must be a rock star or hypocritical politician to get one.
Doesn't that miss the point completely- the court has recognised the individual right to keep and bear arms. Last time I looked the government had no ability to permit or deny a RIGHT. Do American citizens need a permit to exercise their RIGHT to free speech or to their RIGHT to free exercise of religion? Absolutely not- and the court has declared that the citizens of Washington DC have been denied that RIGHT by an unconstitutional law. You don't need a permit to speak- and according to the Second Amendment, you don't need a permit to keep and bear arms either.
Given this ruling everyone who wants to own a gun in DC should go out and buy one right now- it is, after all, their RIGHT to do so.