Keep in mind, there are still many other gun control laws on the books in DC not directly addressed by the Court's decision:
- Only DC residents with registered firearms may possess ammo.
- No "restricted" ammo as defined by DC code
- Only reduced capacity magazines permitted
- No modern sporting arms permitted (aka "assault weapons")
- No "unsafe" handguns as defined by DC code (similar to CA compliant handguns).
Those carrying in DC today in celebration of the Court order (such as VA residents) may find themselves in violation of some of the many other DC gun control laws (standard mags, any ammo/wrong ammo, non-compliant handgun, etc.)
Unless I were a DC resident with a DC handgun registration (thereby insuring handgun, mag, and possession of ammo is in compliance with other DC gun restrictions) I would not consider carrying at this time.
Hopefully, these and other issues will be hammered out and a favorable reciprocity framework will be established (not holding my breath on that one or expecting the DC Council to move very quickly).
Again, this decision is GREAT, but just a stepping stone toward recognition of rights without excessive infringement. SAF/NRA and legal eagles such as Gura and Gottlieb will need to monitor (and likely challenge) DC actions, appeals, stays, and code proposals moving forward.
EDIT TO ADD:
Just read part of Chief Lanier's instructions to the force. They will not arrest for unregistered ammo for non-residents. Quote: "Residents of the District in possession of an unregistered firearm may be charged with Unregistered Firearm and, if applicable, Unregistered Ammunition if they do not also reside in a jurisdiction where they could legally possess the firearm. At this time, individuals who do not live in the District shall not be charged with either unregistered firearm or unregistered ammunition, but other charges may apply."
Chief Lanier spelled out three scenarios dealing with stopping a man on the street carrying a firearm:
-The man says he is a resident of the District, but the gun is unregistered. You should charge him with Unregistered Firearm.
-The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent. You should record any relevant information for potential further investigation, and he is free to leave.
-The man lives in Virginia, where no license or permit is required to openly carry a handgun. However, when you run his name, records indicate that he is a convicted felon. Under District and federal law, felons may not legally possess a firearm. You should arrest him for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.