There's reason for cautious optimism. Here's the actual paragraph from Parker:
"We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
Do you now think Ginsburg and Souter will contradict themselves?
That’s just it - they’ve upped the stakes, and the consequences of failure are unthinkable for both sides.
They’re going for broke.
I forgot to add this:
The gungrabbers see the tide of sentiment turning against them; they see things like the Tennessee gun de-restriction, Governor Perry’s statement about the RKBa, the ever increasing numbers of states and places with CCW and/or open carry, the failure of their predicted bloodbaths after deregulation, and the reduction of their power in areas where their lies have become transparent to all.
They rightfully fear that the logical conclusion of their loss would be the total revocation of nearly all gun controls, “hard won” (in their opinion) over the course of a century.
Then we amend the Constitution to re-establish the individual RKBA. Do you honestly think that the legislatures of 3/4's of the states WOULDN'T pass such an amendment??? With 70% of to populace already believing that such a right exists.
If they win, the "awkward phase" will be over.
Nothing happens if they win. For the most part, most jurisdictions act as if the people do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Many CCW states already have a right to bear arms in their state constitutions, and this ruling would not affect them in any way.
Really, they just have a lot to lose if this is upheld by the full DC court and is then upheld by the Supreme Court. I think it would have a small damaging affect on gun ownership and CCW if the case is overturned by the Supremes, but the tendency has been more restriction, and treating people like there is no individual right to gun ownership, so what would change from overturning the case? Nothing I can see. Guns will still be banned in DC, Chicago and New York.
If they win in SCOTUS, after they lose in en banc appeal, they still lose, because we already have the 'reset button' on the US Constitution. (If the SCOTUS hands us a defeat, the entire experiment in self-governing needs to get refreshed...usually with the blood of tyrants and patriots.)
Then the real fight begins.