The way the Chicago Bears are headed, giving them arms (or guns) won't help much.

As for the actual issue, a change would mean adopting the popularly heldviewthat the 2nd amendment applies to all persons, not just those in a 'militia'. If the Justices applied thesame legal philosophies they express on most issues, this would be a 9-0 in favor of the District of Columbia. But for the same reason the supremes have avoided the issue for so long, I doubt that will be the end game on this issue. Guns are the exception to the strict interpretation philosophy of the Constitution.

I doubt the absolute ruling advocated by the NRA will be the case however. If the Supremes ruled that gun ownership was an absolute right. Then any interference, including registering guns, preventing mental patients or even felons from gun ownership becomes an issue. It would not surprise me, if the Court finds some issue to make their ruling while avoiding the larger issue of what exactly does the 2nd amendment say.

As a defense attorney I look forward to reading the ruling when it comes out. I would love to clog up the courts with dozens or even hundreds of motions regarding illegal searches instigated after a gun was found on a person, or prosecutions, or upgraded sentencings based upon the possession of a handgun. The ruling will have no effect on me, I live in Indiana, and here we have much broader constitutional guarantees for the right to own and carry a gun. We are also members of the state militia by law.