This statement essentially outlines the reasons the present court has jurisdiction over the appeal. It's straightforward. Jurisdiction is a different question than standing (which has been an important issue in this case before). Since this case was brought and decided by the District Court, the DC Circuit Appeals Court pretty much automatically has jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeals court itself could decide that it doesn't have jurisdiction and the lower court should not have had jurisdiction either, but that's a different matter.
This part is mostly a formality. The only hint of a jurisdictional question in this case came in the lower court, where the city argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they should have attempted to register a handgun and appealed the denial to an administrative court that would have jurisdiction over the denial of a handgun registration permit. Since the plaintiffs did not follow that course of action, instead raising the Constitutional challenge directly, that issue will be fought on grounds of standing rather than jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs-Appellants (?Plaintiffs?) seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of various District of Columbia statutes as unconstitutional. The District Court had jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court issued an opinion and order granting Defendants-Appellees? (?Defendants?) motion to dismiss, denying Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment, and directing entry of judgment for Defendants on March 31, 2004. JA 46. Final Judgment for Defendants was entered the same day. JA 62. Plaintiffs timely filed their Notice of Appeal on April 6, 2004. The appeal is from a final order and judgment that disposed of all parties? claims.