SCOTUS grants cert to Heller...

There is a pandora's box of possibilities (for both sides) about what may result from this decision.

One of which would be the demand that the states create militias again...which would allow individuals to own freakin' everything.

I expect SCOTUS will wimp out and come up with a ruling so narrow as to be meaningless...

Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 -- violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

My thoughts are that the question the SCOTUS is answering seems to indicate an assumption there is an individual right.

From Armed Canadian...

...but if we lose and the court upholds a collective right...I could also see this backfiring on the gun control groups in a big way.

You see, their contention has been the 2nd supports the idea that States have the right to form militias from their local populations as needed. It is logical to conclude that arms protected by the 2nd would be the ones suitable for militia service. Of course, what these groups don't say is the fact they would expect such arms to be provided by the State and not by the individuals themselves. A collective body of troops, organized and armed by the States.

But if the Court sees differently and says that certain arms would be protected for individuals serving in a militia, real fun would ensue. You could have no "assault weapon" bans anymore. Handguns would also be safe as would certain sniper (read: hunting) rifles. Not all arms to be sure and a lot of the arms most people see as their birthright could be subject to restriction.

But, of course, you need a militia for these individuals to serve in in order to possess these protected arms. What if a collective rights view leads us rights supporters to demand our States organize and train us as the militia? Properly and fully as envisioned by the Founders and within the confines of the Courts ruling?

Gun laws could fall as a result. They'd have to. You could carve exceptions out of NFA'34. All in the name of us preserving our collective ability to form and serve in a militia.

Note that SCOTUS changed the wording...

Court rephrased the question presented as:

"Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes? "

DC had phrased it as:

"Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of
Columbia from banning private possession of handguns
while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Parker/Heller had phrased it as:

" Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-
abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary,
functional firearms, including handguns, in their
homes."

Looking at that, it almost seems as if the court wants to rule on individual v. collective, doesn't it?