Heller will be huge. Unfortunately, I think the Court will find against the District, but probably without requiring strict scrutiny and keeping the opinion narrowly focused on the DC law. From the common sense perspective, the DC law basically bans people from any feasible attempts at self-defense, and thus I think the Court will come down at least partially opposed to it.
You're right about the organized/unorganized distinction. I mentioned that in my original post but it may have been misleading. You're also right about the state militias around the time of the founding, although I suspect some would argue that the "ties" are stronger now than before.
Even if it were resolved that the National Guard is the definitive modern day militia, the argument that the Second applies only to those entities is still tenuous at best. It would seem ironic that a constitutional right to gun ownership would be so severely limited in a time when so many individuals owned and cherished their arms. Further, you still have the classic law school interpretation conundrum of whether the RKBA is simply supported by the need for a well regulated militia, or whether the inclusion of the militia provision was intended to define the scope of the right.
I don't really think the right to self-defense arises from the Second Amendment. I do think such a right could be crafted from other sources, probably in a much more convincing fashion than even the right to privacy. I realized when I wrote that paragraph that people would probably read it together, but it was really just a stream of one-line supports for the right to gun ownership. Protecting your family in a situation where the police may not be available should be a right, but it is more a practical consideration for why gun ownership is essential. Frankly, I don't think many of us would pause to consider whether the Constitution guarantees us such a right if faced with that precarious dilemma.
I'm not confident we'll get that much resolution this year from Heller.
My argument doesn't have anything to do with what the answer is. I have no idea whether broader concealed carry regulations will have an impact on violence. I strongly suspect that it won't result in rise asserted by anti-gun advocates, but I'm not sure whether it will result in less violence either. My approach is more common sense, at least with respect to the more narrow subject of where concealed weapons are to be permitted. Why should students who can carry in churches, banks, supermarkets, gas stations, etc...have to give up their ability to protect themselves to go to school? This is a group that commits very, very little gun violence in all of the other places they frequent, why would that change if they were allowed the same right on campus? Not only that, but the arrogant advertising of gun free zones simply informs criminals about the location of easy targets. This isn't directed at you, I'm just stating my approach.
