Scalia is very likely to write the opinion for the majority, and it is likely to be a hum-dinger.
I'll go out on a limb and predict the following:
1. A clear-cut holding that 2A protects an individual right.
2. A clear-cut holding that laws limiting this right are subject to strict scrutiny. That is, there must be a compelling government interest in limiting the right, and the law must be as narrowly tailored as possible to obtain that interest.
3. No 2A coverage for machine guns. Alan Gura conceded that during orals. It pissed off a lot of machine gun owners, but it was the right thing to do.
4. The result is not yet binding on state laws. That issue was not in play in this case. That will be won in a suit challenging something like Chicago's gun ban, and it will be an easy win. But it is appropriate that that issue is handled separately.
Here is a passage from Scalia's book, if it gives you any comfort:
Quote:
|
[T]he Second Amendment [i]s a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual's right to bear arms for self-defense. ... Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. ... [T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.
|
The part about not being a limitation on the states should not worry you. All he's doing is stating that incorporation through the 14th is not automatic.
OTH, we may get more than one surprise tomorrow....