To set up the first one, the city of Chicago has been working through a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation to fix city laws after the SAF's successful McDonald lawsuit. The basic problem is that they have extremely restrictive gun laws that require demonstrated shooting practice, but the city wouldn't allow shooting ranges to get that practice. The city did the typical, predictable politics, and drafted an ordinance that gave the appearance of allowing shooting ranges, but practically did no such thing.
So today, the 7th Court of Appeals unanimously (3-0) ruled against Chicago and in favor of the SAF. Judge Sykes' ruling is quite a strong endorsement of the second amendment as an individual right, and ruled the city could not require shooting practice while effectively banning it. As No Lawyers says
Despite Rahm's 11th hour move, today was a good day for the Second Amendment in Chicago.The situation in San Francisco is less sanguine, but better than it has been. Facing a lawsuit by CalGuns aimed at forcing the city's gun laws to comply with the state's laws, the sheriff offered a compromise that may stop the suit. The compromise is still absurdly draconian (by my admittedly non-mainstream standards); for example, you may only carry four calibers (38 special, 9mm, .40 or .45), in only a handful of allowable brand guns, and the process of getting a permit will cost you thousands out of pocket ($2,607 for first time applicants). That means no .380 LCP or TCP for you, Taurus is even a forbidden brand!, and revolver lovers have only one option. Still, although somewhat of a hollow victory, considering this is in the nuttiest, fruitiest part of the Granola State, it might be considered progress.