I agree musketeer. I think the key to any S.Ct. decision is what level of scrutiny they're going to subject any regulation infringing upon our 2nd ammendment rights. Clearly, all the rights set forth in Bill of Rights are subject to some infringement. For example, my 1st amendment right to free speech doesn't permit me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or slander someone. However, in the context of the 1st amendment, any law restricting speech is subject to "strict scrutiny". In other words, Congress must have a damn good reason for enacting this law, and it needs to be narrowly tailored to accomplishing its goal. If we can get this same standard applied to 2nd Amendment, many of the laws restricting our rights are going to be challenged as unconstitutional. However, if S.Ct. imposes a standard where they basically defer to Congress, all sorts of dumbass restrictions are going to pass constitutional muster so long as a creative lawyer can come up with some remotely rational explanation for why such a restriction is necessary.