That said, it looks like the Court will come down squarely in favor of the individual rights model and the question will be mainly about the contours of the amendment, i.e., what types of gun regulation is allowed or how will courts determine what regulations pass constitutional muster.  It'll be interesting to see what sort of reasoning the Court uses, as originalist principles could easily lead to a collective right view (only two states definitely held the individual rights view at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, PA and another one that presently escapes me).  Silberman's circuit court opinion was an impressive recounting of history, but then again the dissent was horrible, so he didn't have a solid critique.  I think the individual rights view is on the strongest ground if they use a structural argument, but we'll see.

Does it look like Kennedy will side with the pro-gunners on the Court?  I suppose that it mainly comes down to his opinions. 

The mention of the "well-regulated militia" in the preamble to the RKBA portion has been taken to signify that the right is granted for militia purposes only.  Such language is thought to be there for a purpose, and a ruling in favor of purely individual ownership rights would ignore the existence of that clause, even though the wording was heavily debated before passage.  That is, the framers could not get passage of language that omitted reference to the special purpose of gun ownership.  Since we no longer have militias in which weapons come from private ownership, the amendment is about as relevant to modern life as the third amendment. 

If the Court overturns settled law, then the impact on blanket bans will be grave for densely populated urban areas where gun violence is high.  However, most Americans will not be in the affected areas, so it won't make much difference to them.  Gun control laws would still be possible, but they would have to be constructed so as to allow a reasonable right to own guns.  Hence, states could still pass laws that required licenses for gun owners and registration for guns.  They could still require trigger locks and mandatory gun safety training.  Such regulations would be reasonable and prudent, and they would not abridge the right to own guns.

1) One could argue that militias are only for the states and thus, the 2nd Amendment has absolutely no operation in DC, a federal enclave that needs no militia.

Good point. The whole point of the amendment was to guarantee that the states could raise militias to counterbalance the federal standing army.

2) Conversely, if an individual right under the 2nd Amendment is found, there is still the tricky question of incorporation -- to what extent does the 2nd Amendment apply to the states.  A recognition of individual gun rights in DC now could affect federal regulation but if the SC chooses not to extend the 2nd Amendment to the states, then the states would still be free to pass any gun regulations they choose.

Another good point, but many states already guarantee a personal right to gun ownership--not one tied to militia duty.  Just the same, those states also seem to pass and enforce regulations on gun ownership.  The key is not to restrict ownership in an unreasonable way.  I think that treating gun ownership as a personal right is a bad idea, but most Americans seem to have bought off on the argument that gun ownership per se has no relationship to rates of violence.

I would be curious to know, and perhaps you can tell me, Cimics... hypothetically, if the court ruled that the constitution doesn't apply in this case because it is a federal enclave but then goes on and says that as a matter of a fact it is an individual and not a collective right, is that still law?   Can they basically declare it moot but still say something like "but even though it is moot, if it weren't, this would be the verdict...."  ?

What you are talking about is referred to as obiter dictum or sometimes as dictum or dicta.  Basically, dicta is language in a court opinion that is not necessary for the resolution of the case.  Dicta is technically not binding, even from the SC, although dicta supported by a majority of justices on the SC tends to carry great weight, for reasons that should be obvious. 

But if the federal enclave argument carries the day, the possibility arises that any statements about the individual rights status of the 2nd Amendment would fail to garner a majority of the court.  All it would take would be for one judge (Kennedy probably though it could be one of the others) to decide to refrain from joining or authoring any opinion but the opinion or portion of an opinion that resolves the case on the federal enclave argument.  If you then have four justices espousing the individual rights view and four espousing the collectivist view -- well, nothing really gets resolved.  Another possibility is that there may be three (or more) positions regarding the individual rights status of the 2nd.  Perhaps Breyer articulates a multifactored analysis that no one but him understands.   Of course, things could get really interesting if Scalia were to join the collectivist side, or conversely, Souter were to join the individual rights side. 

I can also see a "pyrrhic victory" scenario for the individual rights side.  Here is how it could turn out:

1) federal enclave means DC is exempt from the 2nd

2) the 2nd doesn't apply to the States, so they are exempt

3) that leaves federal laws acting upon the states for what the 2nd would protect against, but the 2nd is not absolute, and depending on how unabsolute it is, federal regulation might be significant -- perhaps to the point where the 2nd doesn't prevent the Feds from doing anything they were likely to do anyway.

I'm not saying, of course, that it will turn out this way, just that it is a conceivable scenario even under an individual rights interpretation.

 

There is a small blurb in FN11 about the 2nd Amendment in Justice Souter's dissent in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer: "While that document [Bill of Rights] protected a range of specific individual rights against federal infringement, it did not, with the possible exception of the Second Amendment, offer any similarly specific protections to areas of state sovereignty."

Justice Thomas had this to say in a concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937-9:

The Second  Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. 1 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. 2 As the parties  did  not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

2Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right.

Thomas' opinion seems to suggest that he is in the individual rights camp.  The passage from Souter et al seems suggest the collectivist camp, but not as strongly.  I hadn't read or listened to the oral argument, so With Kennedy's statement there, that would indeed suggest the individual rights camp prevailing at least 5-4, absent a major defection by Scalia.

Being a federal enclave may have some other effects, but the Bill of Rights generally applies.  Indeed, there would be no "incorporation" issues to speak of -- every law would be one of federal origin and the courts would all be federal as well.   If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to a federal enclave, that would be a unique aspect of that amendment.

That would support the collective rights interpretation.

Not necessarily.  What it might mean is that by an individual or 'private ownership' the framers didn't merely mean a constitutional right to hunt, but rather that they were allowing the individual to possess military grade weapons if they like.  That is in fact how I have always read it.

"No one needs a gun for fun."

Well, I'm not proposing we have them for fun, and I'm pretty sure the framers didn't have that in mind at all. It isn't a constitutional right to hunt.  It was a check and balance on the abuses of government.  Such abuses were within their living memory, just as such abuses are within our living memory.  Only some of us think that things like that can never happen again, and so they advocate the removal of that which might actually keep it from happening again.

How many people die every day in automobile accidents?

Sntjohnny is also in favor of removing all guard rails at the Grand Canyon.  A few more careless people might die, but so what?  More people die in car accidents every day than fall to their deaths in the Grand Canyon.