Even we disagree on what's "reasonable" And if we disagree on this forum, then obviously there is a wide range of what different people consider "reasonable." For example, I think if a person is incarcerated in either a mental institution or a jail, then no guns. Otherwise I say OK. Take criminals for example. If they're a danger to society what are they doing out of jail, and if they're not a danger to society, then they should be able to defend themselves legally the same as anyone else. Also there is the practical side of it that anyone intent on committing murder or assault with a firearm is obviously not going to pay any attention to a gun control law.
"Reasonable restrictions" only affect the law abiding.
Ok. As I see it, there are three possible outcomes.
1) they rule that there is no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms
2) they rule that such a right does exist, subject to reasonable restrictions
3) they rule that there is an absolute, unqualified right to keep and bear arms by anyone and everyone
From what I’m reading:
1) ain’t gonna happen, so that means it’s 2) or 3)
3) ain’t gonna happen, because unfettered unqualified rights have already been reviewed and rejected. The ole “can’t yell fire in a theatre” stuff
That leaves 2).
I’m just trying to call it as I see it, not how I want it.
The thing about 2) is that it ALLOWS for some differences in geographical circumstances.
But there is an absolute result if it ends up being 2).
“Gun bans” would be banned.