The issues before the Supreme Court are whether the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership and possession to all persons or to persons designated as members of a state militia; and secondly is the 2nd amendment meant to apply to the federal govt alone, or is it a 'fundamental' right as coveredby the 14th amendment. If the Supreme Court strikes down the DC law, it would be the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled the right to own guns (or possess them) is a right protected to all persons. I won't bore you with a discussion of strinct interpretation, or the history of gun issues. But whatever the Court rules, there will be a path beaten to the courthouse-motions in hand.

I expected the Court to hold with the same legal philosophies, but itseemsthat many of them regard guns as the exception. Suffice it to say, that if strict interpretation was applied- Wash DC would win. Only if the majority excepts what has been called the NRA position, would gun laws as they are be significantly alterred. In that scenario, the Brady bill could be unconstitutional, most restrictions on felons, mental patients, non citizens could cease to exist. In fact any law restricting guns (or other weapons?) could be void.

Personally I am torn, I have owned guns in thepast, will again. My father is a competitive shooter, many of my friends and relatives are advid hunters, shooters, or enthusiasts. ON the same page, they are also the onesthat favor intelligent gun control laws, like classes to teach folks responsible gun ownership. But I see a vast array of court clogging issues related to gunsif the Court rules broadly.

Your original question is what do (I) think will happen. Like I said earlier, I would not be surprised if the Court finds someway to rule on the issue in a limited manner, while leaving the broader issues alone. It is a common approach of the Supreme Court. Professionally, I am interested in what they actually write down as their ruling.