I wonder how the Supremes are going to react. If they are linear and pure, then even the permitting processes for CCW are unconstitutional.
Except for those serving in an active duty militia? Darn tootin' it's unConstitutional! How many other Rights do we have that require a permitting process?
SCOTUS, if they even get or take the case, will decide it as painfully narrow as possible. They will address ONLY the two laws struck down, being: no licensing for home-only possession, and requiring locking/disabling arms. They will likely uphold the verdict, and note that the verdict only applies to DC and the two laws in question. They will NOT explicitly broaden the verdict beyond saying that the feds cannot forbid licensing in-home possession, and cannot require disabling arms therein.
The benefit, however, of SCOTUS making such a verdict is opening the floodgates for comparable cases with minor differences.
If the feds can't ban licensed pistols in the home, what about machineguns? (repeal 922(o), return new MGs to NFA approval.)
If the feds can't require locking/disabling legal arms in the home, what about in one's car? (toss FOPA's requirement that arms transported interstate must be unloaded and locked.)
If feds can't prohibit home possession in DC, how about DC carry? ("bear" applies as much as "keep".)
The biggest problem will be establishing "standing", which apparently only exists if one is denied required approval, or is arrested & convicted.