I think the SOB's (including all three branches of gov, both main parties, and most state/local govs) really do not think that the good citizens would go to 'extremes' over gun rights. They have successfully changed the RKBA to the PKBA - the permission to keep and bear arms. On paper, they are right since guns are the single most regulated of consumer products.
However, the basic rights delineated by the B of R's exist whether governments like them or not - they have the power to deny these rights, but not the legal/ethical/moral authority to do so. And possibly, if they get too strenous in trying to forcibly deny the right to arms, they might go too far and incur the wrath of not just a few patriots.
Since the 9th Circuit decision in Silveira, nothing has changed in Cal vis-a-vis my ability to purchase weapons; the AW's (@sswipes, not assault weapons) in the state legislature would sure like to write a total gun ban bill, but they are not in a position to actually get it signed into law at this time because of the successful recall election. True, Arnold is not a total gun rights supporter, but the RATs are still in a bit of shock over the recent exercise of "the power of the people". Not that I think they (mostly the RAT party)will ever abandon their desire for total control/tyranny; people are just not going to see what good can come from giving up grandpa's Model 94 Winchester, nor his Remington .30-06. The trick used by the enemies of freedom is to villify weapons like the dreaded black rifle and stick it with a bad moniker - "assault weapon" - and then play up the public relations war with their commie allies in the mainstream media. "Sniper Rifle" just ain't going to cut it when talking about the family deer rifle.
The US SC could go either way with this case, if they agree to hear it, which I do not think will happen. No, the one sure thing about the Court is that most of the associate justices are cowards. Its one thing to put out a half-@ssed piece of drivel about the University Michigan Law School admissions policy, and quite another to set in motion the destruction of the Republic. The majority may be commies but they are not stupid. If they do agree to hear this case, the most likely outcome will be another 'compromise' decision which defines the RKBA as an individual right, subject to a certain level of restriction as to who may own what type of guns, with the government reserving the (unconstitutional) authority to exercise "compelling interest" in keeping certain "highly dangerous" weapons banned. Such a decision might be thought to maintain the status quo, but anything which actually defines an individual right would be good.