I am not entirely optimistic about the coming 2AMD decision. We might have another Kennedy majority.At least three of those Justices would be happy to declare the 2AMD unconstitutional. There is even a sort of precedent for that at the state level- the Colorado Court a few years ago declared a properly accepted state constitution amendment unconstitutional and everybody just said Oh, what a shame!
We'll see who eats crow within two weeks. I'm not worried about Kennedy if he's consistent with his questions and comments from the oral argument. We might have unexpected allies.
Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read bear Arms in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: Surely a most familiar meaning [of carries a firearm] is, as the Constitutions Second Amendment (keepand bear Arms) and Blacks Law Dictionary . . . indicate: wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning forbear Arms.