[publiusF27]

I'm concerned how the U.S. Supreme Court will interpret "keep", "bear", and "arms" and what they will consider to be an infringement.

No firearms law since 1846 has been considered an infringement, and we've got some burdensome and screwy laws in some places. I don't see how second amendment protection can get any weaker in terms of the kinds of laws that are allowed. I can certainly see how it could get better, or the current state of affairs could be ratified by the court. That would be bad, but in practice would change nothing, since the current state of affairs exists anyway.

There have been calls in Congress for the renewal of the AWB. Just because it expired does not mean it can't come back, but a favorable ruling from the SC might well mean that.

[robertpaulsen]

"No firearms law since 1846 has been considered an infringement"

Many, many have. Just not by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For example, all cases concerning state firearm laws presented to the federal appellate courts were rejected since the second amendment wasn't incorporated and didn't apply to the states. With incorporation, all of those cases can be retried.

All of the federal circuit courts can now hear cases regarding state gun laws, and all the federal circuit courts can give their opinion.

Well, we can probably count on the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit to rule favorably. That leaves the 1st Circuit, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th, the 7th, the 8th, the 9th, the 10th, and the 11th -- all of which have previously ruled a collective militia/state right.

2 against 10. Two say concealed carry is part of "to keep". Ten say it's not. It goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Five justices decide for the whole country. I don't like the odds.