I’m expecting a mealy-mouthed “have it both ways” ruling.
Something along the lines of yes, the 2A recognizes an individual right, but the right is subject to reasonable restrictions. And they’ll punt on defining “reasonable” and says it’s up to the people, acting thru their federal, state and local representatives, to decide.
If the DC ban stands, all is lost.
If the case is remanded with a lesser standard than "strict scrutiny", then there will soon be a "blue" America and a "red" America, with little in common.
I see little to suggest that Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will join in a "mealy-mouthed" decision.
The weakest decision I see is for an individual right and a punt on the level of scrutiny, with a statement that ANY LEVEL OF SCRUTINY bars the DC ban. Roberts has expressed the opinion that these decisions should be no broader than is necessary to address the issues before the Court.
The worst of all worlds will be if Kennedy joins the four communists and votes to permit disarming of the American people. There will be little that one could call "mealy-mouthed" about that.
I believe that the four conservatives are too strong to be dragged off point by Kennedy. They may have to compromise the scope of the decision, but not its correctness. If that happens, I foresee a separate concurring opinion from the four conservatives, demonstrating very clearly how important it will be to control future appointments to the Supreme Court.