[oldfart]

As many have suggested, the question was re-written by the Justices to cover as narrow an issue as possible.
From the SCOTUS Blog:

“The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?””

I think they’re trying very hard to cover their butts.

[Joe Brower]

See post #19.

"Covering their butts"? You betcha. It's what government types do best.

And I can hardly wait to see the rhetorical BS that we can expect to come pouring out from the political left and its media lackeys. It's going to pile up so fast, you'll need wings to stay above it.

It's going to be fun.

[CRBDeuce]

I would have been more comfortable with putting (who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia) in parentheses, showing that it is of secondary, not primary, importance to the issue.

[Betty Jane]

Looking at the narrow question they are asking I think they will rule it is an individual right to keep guns in one's residence, but the city has the right to make laws once the weapon is outside the home.

This way nobody's happy.

[Old Professer]

They could weasel out just because D.C. isn’t a state.

[gridlock]

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?””

If you ask me, the Court has already tipped thier hands by substituting "state-regulated" for "well regulated.

They are going to come down on the side of a collective right. The fix is in.

[Petronski]

...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia...

"State-regulated" militia?

We're going to lose this one, I think, just based on the Court's choice of that one hyphenated term. The constitution does not refer to a "state-regulated" militia. It refers to a "well regulated" militia:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

If the court enters into this with the presumption that "regulated" means subjected to state regulations, rather than with a straight and true aim, then we've already lost significant ground: the definition of "well regulated."

This is going to end horribly, IMHO.