I'm not going to get my panties in a knot, but hopefully,...........Hopefully, they take into account how Washington D.C. reacted to the Heller ruling by running circles around it using the "reasonable" wording.
I'm torn down the middle on how D.C. reacted to the Heller ruling will influence their McDonald ruling. I'm leaning toward "favorably". Heller could have been the best thing that ever happened to us. My reasoning:
If I was charged with making a "rule", and I did so only to have everyone dance around it, make up excuses not to follow it, and exempt themselves from it by claiming it doesn't affect them...........
....and now I'm charged with making another rule that definately will affect everyone????
I'm going to make damned sure folks aren't going to dance around it this time.
Here! Dance around THIS M@^%*R F&(#*R!
Of course, never forget that these are "Washington Insiders" making the rules. Just because they are justices, they are still political appointees, making political rules. They are political animals. Therefore, keeping things vague in order to allow "skirting" could be thier intention. The Heller reaction might be the way they wanted it to happen allowing them to come out with a "favorable" ruling with no real change in the status quo.
However, from their personal profiles, I really don't think this is the case. 1)Their reaction during Obama's State of the Union speech, (Remember when Obama "disagreed" with one of their rulings and Justice Stevens shook his head?) 2)the reaction and complete disregard of Heller, and 3)the possibility of negative reaction by the justices to recent appointees might just work in gun rights supporters' favor.
It's very possible they might come down with a very specific and "undancearoundable" ruling. At least, I hope so. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
