This is one of the most important 2nd Amendment cases to come along since US v. Miller.

This ruling was made by the D.C. Court of Appeals, and absolutely establishes the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental, individual right. The deciding judges include a lot of scholarship on the 2nd Amendment and really did a good job of covering the history and real purpose of the amendment better than just about anything else I've seen.

Here's the money quote:

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). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Updates:
The District of Columbia petitioned for an en banc hearing on 4.9.2007. The petition is here.
On 1.4.2008, the District of Columbia submitted it's brief to the Supreme Court.

This is an interesting case concerning Jury Nullification that took place on 28th of January, 1794. The Supreme Court had appointed a special jury to hear this case, which involved debts owed to several parties in different states with a British citizen.

The money quote:

Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

This is a state court decision of the kind that would not normally be posted here. However, it was such a wonderful read, that it must be included.

The following is a direct swipe from the state court at the lengths SCOTUS will go to emasculate the constitution:

Some courts have invoked "great public concern" about the danger of intoxicated drivers on our roadways as an excuse to manufacture new rules which have eroded the Fourth Amendment. See Garcia, 500 N.E.2d at 161-62; see also Sitz I, 596 U.S. at 451; Brown, 443 U.S. at 50. But our judiciary has no license to authorize the systematic violation of individual rights in the name of "great public concern," a theory of federal search and seizure law that finds no basis in the text, history, or well-settled interpretation of the Indiana Constitution. We will not sacrifice the rights guaranteed under Article I, Section 11 for an indeterminate social agenda of "great public concerns."