[SandWMan]

My crystal ball tells me the ruling will go something like this: The state/city cannot put a total ban on handguns in the home, but other restrictions, well they might be OK...leaving...no, kicking the door wide open for restrictions on the types of handguns or other guns, limits on types of ammunition and how much you can have, limits on actually carrying arms, licensing, etc. Everything but a “complete ban on handguns”.

[Mariner]

Keep and "Bear" arms is the standard the USSC must define.

My guess, they'll shy away on that definition and overturn the Chicago ban.

There'll be language about "unreasonable restriction" of the right...access to ammo...registration...etc.

However, I don't see the USSC saying one model of firearm is good, another bad.

I believe that the INTENT was that citizens could have whatever the modern infantry uses in any given era...M16 derivatives would be the standard now.

[Sudetenland]

I fear you are right. I don't believe even the conservative supreme's have a clear understanding of the intent of our founding fathers. I believe that men like Scalia are just as subject to the pressures of politics as any member of congress is.

Scalia's writings in the Heller case were...inadequate in their defense of the RTKBA. When I read Heller, I was greatly dissappointed by the decision.

[PackerBoy]

The ruling should look a lot like the Heller ruling if the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment is applicable to the states (and local governments).