[robertpaulsen]

"I don't see how a ruling saying they can all continue to do what they're doing affects anything."

True. As with the Kelo decision, nothing changes.

But, with Kelo decision, states, cities and municipalies nationwide now know that they can constitutionally seize private property and sell it to a private developer. Will they do that? Who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court says they can, and that troubles me.

"It's already clear that handguns (or any other weapons) in the hands of the unorganized militia are not protected. You said so yourself."

Not protected by the second amendment. Handguns are protected by state constitutions which use similar language.

So, for the highest court in the land to rule that "arms" do not include handguns, well, how will the states defend their laws when Sarah Brady and her bunch come-a-knockin'?

"And the current interpretation by the majority of the federal courts today would not allow that to happen? Why not?

First, any ruling by a federal circuit court only affects that circuit. Second, I'm not aware that any other circuit court has ruled that handguns aren't protected arms. Third, someone still needs to write a law prohibiting them, and there hasn't been a great rush to do so.

I'm saying that could change when the highest court rules and settles the ongoing controversy.

"I really fail to see how they could make matters."

Today, you can move to another state.

[publiusF27]

But, with Kelo decision, states, cities and municipalies nationwide now know that they can constitutionally seize private property and sell it to a private developer. Will they do that? Who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court says they can, and that troubles me.

I see what you're saying, and it's a valid concern. There was also quite a backlash against the Kelo decision, and some good legislation was passed by states and the feds on the subject.

So, for the highest court in the land to rule that "arms" do not include handguns, well, how will the states defend their laws when Sarah Brady and her bunch come-a-knockin'?

They'll say, "But it was just a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption, and didn't affect commerce at all!" ;-)

OK, so that's been tried. Or maybe we'll actually win the Parker/Heller case... Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and... who?

There are lots of potential flavors of "win" which are now possible. You've talked about some potential risks, and made some valid points, but you haven't mentioned the gains we stand to make at all levels of govt if the SC rules in a way favorable to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.