I may be misunderstanding, but it looks to me that it's not the end of the case, right? It appears this is simply granting an injunction against the city's ban until the matter is settled in court (a symbolic win, though in practice it's pretty silly since one could build a range during the injunction, then have the court decide the ban is OK, then have to tear it down). A pretty awesome ruling though. There's quite a lot of smacking down the lower court, too The lower court judge tried to say that because there's no post-Heller precedent, she didn't need to apply any level of scrutiny to restrictions on the second amendment. This court replies: In other words - Regarding heightened scrutiny (i.e. the government has to PROVE to some degree (depending on the type of scrutiny) that their laws limiting the 2nd Amendment are necessary and in the public's interest) ... the argument that it's not needed is absolute garbage since allowing the government to willy-nilly create gun control laws without proving their need would effectively erase the second amendment. Thank goodness this court used logic. It's a refreshing change. It's also nice to see the ruling acknowledge that our right to self defense is a pre-existing natural right.