[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.

[ctdonath2]

A ruling that “accomplishes nothing” would be the same as SCOTUS denying the appeal - which is still in our favor, as DC is where federal suits would be filed.

This appeal is an unavoidable point of clarification. Regardless of what happens, we’ll have something concrete to act on - even if if the ruling is against us. Our biggest problem up to this point was the sheer ambiguity; this case will clarify _something_.