There will certainly be no restoration of the right to manufacture and purchase new machine guns, nor will there be expansion of any rights to go around with a weapon in public without a State permit. I do not think even the most generous Court decision would restore much more than the right to own a rifle of relatively modern design--not necessarily semi-automatic-- and take it to a shooting range for practice, quite possibly only after obtaining a Federal and/or State license.
The Constitutionality of losing gun rights for domestic violence misdemeanors or protective orders is certainly questionable to my mind, and perhaps the reversal of this ex post facto injustice would be the greatest result of a Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd Amendment.
Even if the Court upholds pistol and semi-auto bans, licensing, and other regulations, I still think little will change. If anything, the gun-owning community will be invigorated, and we might see further gains at the State level comparable to the concealed weapons permit reforms of the past two decades.
If the decision is for a collective-rights interpretation, and totally against us, then the gun community will be REALLY riled up, and the Democrats could expect to get their balls cut off at the next election. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a new Amendment proposed to supersede and expand our Second Amendment rights, and it would have a pretty good chance of passage.
-ccm
Then stick a fork in her, America is done.
A strict interpretation of the 2A makes the right to "keep and bear" available to all (people). That includes felons, children, nut-cases- essentially everyone.
Wearing a seatbelt voluntarily, rather than face a State fine- is American.
Putting your child in a car-seat voluntarily, rather than to avoid a State fine- is American.
Owning a bar where patrons are asked not to smoke, rather than instituting a ban at the behest of the State (to avoid that inevitable fine)- is American.
Extending the right to keep and bear arms to felons does not make them more dangerous, extending the right to all others will give them pause in their pursuits, as their adversary will possess the instantaneous means to thwart them.
Children can be taught the serious concern and consideration that must be given to weapons. There may even be instances where a child has prevented or deterred a crime with a gun. An American parent is entrusted with the common sense to determine at what age this instruction may be suitable.
Nut-cases would appear at first to be a problem, however, should people of limited mental ability be defenseless? Suppose a child with Downes Syndrome reached into his mother's purse to retreive a handgun and pointed it in the direction of an attacker who his mother thought stopped to help change a flat tire, but instead, was smashing her face against the car door. Would that be a 'bad' thing?
Would Road-Rage episodes escalate into shoot-outs? No more so than losing at poker. Besides, fore-knowledge that the other driver is likely armed as well, driving might once again return to a more courteous endevor as before. Instead of flipping one-another off, you might hear things like, "Excuse me, would you happen to have some Grey Poupon?"
With, as you say, so little to gain and so much to lose, I don't understand the rush to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.