I wouldn't be so sure. We were certain that so-called campaign finance reform would be struck down as an infringement of the 1st amendment. Bush even counted on that when he signed the horrid thing. We were also certain that any sane SC justice couldn't vote against Kelo in the New London case, thus inventing new police powers out of whole cloth, in direct contravention of the 6th amendment and 200+ years of precedent. Not to mention all the drug war forfeiture cases where the accused is guilty until proven innocent. But they voted against the Bill of Rights in all these cases. Why should they start voting for freedom at this late date, in support of the 2nd amendment?
CFR was sticky. It's clear that the government can regulate commerce to some degree, including commercial speech. The debate essentially came down to commercial speech vs. political speech, and the SC scrwed up. At least that's my understanding of it.
Guns can be stiky, but not that sticky. I'd bet the rent on it.