Either they'll rule along the limited lines of what Nachoman said in post #54 or they'll rule Militia only. If they go with Circuit Court case precedent, it will be the latter.
Plus, the Miller decision doesn't help matters. Here you've got the U.S. Supreme Court implying that only Militia-type weapons are protected by the second amendment. Now, we can argue all day what exactly those weapons are, but it seems odd that the court would be saying that only military weapons are protected .... for civilian use.
Why make a distinction? Why not just say "all weapons". Criminy -- if you're protecting the most destructive of all weapons, why leave out a few?
There is a simple answer, of course. And that is that the second amendment only protects Militia-type weapons for those individuals in a Militia. But nobody wants to hear that. So just pretend I didn't say it.
Since you are 1000% wrong in the first place, I will try to ignore the fact that you have told another lie. (Like THAT’S something new!) Especially since you have NOT provided any background to show that your “interpretation” is what they had in mind. And since you KNOW that the side which interprets the Second Amendment CORRECTLY has over a jillion quotes FROM THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES which lend great credence to the fact that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, guaranteed but not granted by the constitution. And what government does not grant it cannot take away... not and be a legitimate government, anyway.
Oh... and under Federal law, the militia is all able-bodied males between 18-60 (IIRC) (and females of like ages who are part of the ORGANIZED militia). Which further shoots your theory in the ass.