Then it seems like Heller could be decided so narrowly that it only applies to DC???
I don't see how. Whatever they rule will have to say something very relevant about the Second Amendment. You and I will be very effected by whatever they decide.
Whatever hopes I have held that I might some day in my lifetime be able to exercise an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms here in Kalifornia would be dashed completely with an erroneous decision.
Depends on what’s actually decided.
The issue at hand is whether 3 specific DC laws are unconstitutional. If Mr. Heller wins, then those 3 laws are revoked and DC residents get to exercise their RKBA (in the context of whatever other laws remain, a different discussion). In a sense, yes, the case can and likely will be decided so narrowly that it will, strictly speaking, only apply to DC.
HOWEVER...
In order to achieve any ruling, SCOTUS has to establish (and typically explains, though is not required to!) the principles by which that ruling is achieved. THIS is the precedent that actually interests the rest of us, and which defines principles by which other cases can be brought and laws overturned. Should they explain that laws X, Y and Z are unconstitutional because of constitutional principles P, D and Q, those principles can be referenced as justification for other actions. For instance, if SCOTUS says handguns cannot be banned for general private home ownership/use because of the generality “arms...shall not be infringed”, then I will file suit demanding my right to own an M4 for home defense on the same principles.
Yes, the case could be decided very narrowly. It will most likely NOT be so narrow as to be completely useless elsewhere. Note that the question addresses individuals not acting as part of a state-organized (regulated, modern definition) militia.
While the specific laws being considered are DC-specific, the legal right and class of individuals are not DC-specific, so whatever the ruling is likely could be translated to other people and situations via “equal protection” - which will promptly raise the “incorporation” question, addressing whether the states must respect RBKA just like the feds have to.
(Awright, I’m fried. Let me know if the above doesn’t quite make sense.)
Not the way they've framed the question. Yes the decision will apply directly only to the DC laws at issue. But the principal and precedence for future cases will be that *Individuals* with no militia affiliation, have second amendment rights. Just what those rights are would remain to be legally defined, except in the same circumstances as the DC laws would be found to be violate them. (Yea I know what they are, but the lower Courts don't seem to understand the terms, "keep", "bear" and "arms", even when they do understand "right of the people", which is too rare in itself.)
That is why I/we need to understand just what the three sections of the DC law mentioned in the "Question" prohibit. If those prohibitions are found to violate the second amendment, the same provisions in other laws, at least at the federal level, would also violate the second amendment. Then the next battle would either be other federal laws, or determination of the whether the 14the amendment extends the protections of the second amendment to the states. Preferably both at the same time.