[ctdonath2]

Note that a court ruling against the Second Amendment would not be nearly as disastrous as some of the posters here imply.

Not sure about that. As it stands, there is (aside from post-'86 machineguns) practically no gun ban on the federal level. The AWB having expired, the DC ban was about it - and very limited geography at that.

A ruling against RKBA would tell Congress they CAN ban the heck out of things (if you can't have a functioning gun in your home, nearly all other restrictions are more "reasonable") and our opposition would be hugely motivated. We'd also lose any chance to get the 2nd "incorporated to the states".

Of course, SCOTUS specializes in unpredictably bizzare rulings.

[Mariebl]

Not sure about that. As it stands, there is (aside from post-'86 machineguns) practically no gun ban on the federal level. The AWB having expired, the DC ban was about it - and very limited geography at that.

A ruling against RKBA would tell Congress they CAN ban the heck out of things (if you can't have a functioning gun in your home, nearly all other restrictions are more "reasonable") and our opposition would be hugely motivated. We'd also lose any chance to get the 2nd "incorporated to the states".

Of course, SCOTUS specializes in unpredictably bizzare rulings.

You're right that it would be an extremely painful decision for us, and motivate our opposition. However, the fact remains that House members have to get voted into office every two years.... And, in a climate where a high majority of the states have loosened their 'concealed carry' restrictions, with no ill effects following, and where Democrat politicians, I believe, have been a lot more cautious about anti-gun rhetoric than they were, say, 20 years ago, I think that we'd still be in a strong position.

Also, the opposition would have a precedent, but I feel confident that it'd be the darndest, poorly reasoned illogical precedent imaginable. So, precedents like that were made to be overturned.... We wouldn't lose 'any chance' for improvement in the future.

My biggest concern, actually, is that they'll bring in a decision so narrowly worded that it doesn't accomplish anything--and all our stress and worry will be for nothing.

[Clump]

I really think the 4 conservatives will uphold a general individual right under the 2nd Amendment, but they will have to fight off Breyer's "purposes and outcomes" argument to get Kennedy on board.

I am quite grateful that D.C. passed such a draconian gun ban, since it really gives us facts that are just ripe for a favorable ruling. What would stink is if somehow a ban on machine guns was being challenged based on the 2nd Amt. RKBA.

My main point is that the facts in this case really give us our best chance of winning.