Nope.
My reason: A decision in Heller that follows the collective right interpretation, upholding any and all bans, would not change our current legal landscape. Right now, there already ARE bans in some places in the US (which is why the suit exists). In some places the RKBA crowd is losing to the anti crowd, in others we're winning. All of this is being done in a legal environment where the federal government isn't interested in stopping state or local bans. Indeed, the San Fran handgun ban (hey, that rhymes!) was even struck down according to the CA constitution, a victory even in a state considered a RKBA hellhole.
A loss in this one won't change a thing. We'll still be fighting stupid laws in every state in the union, and we'll still win in some places, lose in others, depending on the strength of the anti nuts. All private ownership won't automatically be banned; it will remain every bit as likely as it is now (not terribly). Sure, we'll still have to redouble our efforts to fight them, but if the decision comes down tomorrow (it won't, but say it does) that we don't have an individual right to firearm ownership, it doesn't mean we'll be handing in our guns and ammo on Thursday while taking up model trains on Friday.
A win, however, would put some kinds of bans beyond the pale, which would be a HUGE win. And from what I have read about how the oral arguments went, I feel hopeful.