[Wynton]

I know enough about the law and the leanings of the court to recognize that the issue is close enough to go either way. My bet, though, is that the court will construe the right to bear arms to be a personal one.

But there isn't enough discussion about the actual practical impact of such a decision. Even if the right is deemed to be personal, the court will undoubtedly condone reasonable restrictions, just as they permit reasonable restrictions of various other rights, like the right to free speech.

More to the point, I doubt that many laws will actually be affected. Perhaps the court will invalidate the DC law, which is one of the most restrictive in the nation. But regulations about registering, etc, certainly will remain. So will most criminal laws.

The biggest impact, in my view, would be political. If the court outlines certain standards that must be met to uphold a law concerning guns, we could see a rash of attempts at new legislation. In that scenario, there will be a constant tension and debate between those who put a priority on law enforcement types and those who put a priority on gun ownership.

Anyone care to speculate which party will benefit the most from that debate?