[djf]

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.

[PowderMonkey]

Yep. You’re right. I believe it’ll be Nr. 2 as well. The pessimist in me, however, warns that Nr. 1 is not outside the realm of possibility. After all, the Black Robes have issued stranger edicts, such as our recent loss of private property rights. Once a right is taken away...

[Gondring]

I agree with your analysis. There’s every indication that George W. Bush will get his way in support of gun-control regulations.

I am shocked...shocked, I tell you...that FReepers aren’t whining about how foreign law is being used to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, though. :-)

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

To believe Option 1 cannot happen is very foolish. No reasonable person would have ever believed the U.S. Supreme Court would advocate the brutal murder of 1 million plus infants every year.

Prior to that SCOTUS completely stripped the 10th amendment of any real meaning.

What the hell makes anyone believe that SCOTUS will not strip us of our rights under the second amendment?