Last week’s ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals that the District’s restrictive gun law is unconstitutional has had the expected impact — battle lines have been drawn, and activists on either side defend the decision as a step forward for personal freedom and self defense or deride it as a reckless move that could increase violence in an already violent city. The Post jumped on the decision first, publishing an editorial condemning it the day after it was announced. Titled “Dangerous Ruling,” the Post argued that the decision would allow more handguns to flow onto District streets:

If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder.

The Washington Times, naturally, disagreed today, arguing that the decision would allow residents to better defend themselves against criminals who can get guns, restrictions or not:

We’re one step closer to a proper respect for the right to self-defense through gun ownership in the District of Columbia…As a matter of policy, the District’s gun-control laws have been an unmitigated failure. Gun violence accelerated after these laws were enacted in 1976. The laws had no good effect and harmed ordinary people.

Gary Imhoff of D.C. Watch argued a different point on Sunday, noting his displeasure with the District’s reliance on the argument that the Second Amendment shouldn’t apply to the city because it’s not a state:

“The District of Columbia is not a state, and should not be treated as a state. It is purely a federal enclave, and its residents do not have the same rights as the residents of states, including the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They are second-class citizens, and should be.” If anyone said that to you, you would probably be furious. You would regard the person who said it as an enemy of the District of Columbia and its citizens, and you would be right. Yet that is exactly the argument made by two mayors of the District of Columbia and their respective Attorneys General in Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, the Second Amendment case that the Court of Appeals decided on Friday.

Opinions have also been going back and forth in the blogosphere, the Post’s Letters to the Editor page and on various neighborhood listservs. (My local listserve, newhilleast, has been somewhat quiet on the matter, though a few people chimed in to say they were happy with the decision.)

What have you heard?