[LambSlave]

The Supreme Court CAN'T affirm the written meaning of the Second Amendment! 20,000 local laws, Federal laws, the 1968 Kennedy Firearms Act, the 1934 Machine Gun Act, the BATF regulations, they all would lose standing like a fart in a hurricane!

I agree. They will try the case on the basis of some legal obscurity; e.g. D.C.'s standing before the court because they aren't a state, or some other crap, but they WILL NOT directly confirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[El Gato]

I agree. They will try the case on the basis of some legal obscurity; e.g. D.C.'s standing before the court because they aren't a state, or some other crap, but they WILL NOT directly confirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Not with the way the Court itself wrote the Question.

Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code §§ 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.

Thus they at least imply that the second protects "rights of individuals", and they must determine what those rights are, or are not, in order to answer the question of whether the laws indicated violate those rights.