2007 Term -- "the Second Amendment Term"?
At Concurring Opinions, the question is will the Court's 2007 Term be the Second Amendment Term?
"If the Court takes the case, then October Term 2007 becomes The Second Amendment Term. Parker would swiftly overshadow, for example, the Court’s important recent cert grant in the Guantanamo cases.
How many Americans would view District of Columbia v. Parker as the most important court case of the last thirty years? The answer must run into seven figures. The decision would have far-reaching effects, particularly in the event of a reversal."
He points out that the only way the Court could overturn the DC Circuit ruling would be to become obviously inconsistent in its treatment of the First, and of the Second, Amendments. The First Amendment establishment clause (as Akhil Amar points out) doesn't proclaim a "right," of the people or otherwise, but only that Congress shall make no law -- meaning Congress also couldn't interfere with State establishments of religion, which would continue to exist for decades. So it can be read as a federalism guarantee -- religious establishment will be a state rather than federal question. Nonetheless, the Court has read the establishment clause very broadly as creating an individual right.
In contrast, the Second Amendment does guarantee a "right of the people." It's hard to see how that can be read as something other than a guarantee of a right, and be consistent with establishment clause jurisprudence.
Finally, he suggests that in the popular eye there would be simpler reaction to ruling against Parker: "Wait a minute. I have a fundamental right to obtain an abortion or to engage in sodomy, even tho the Bill of Rights says nothing about either, yet I *don't* have a right that is spelled out in plain English? The Justices are just making it up as they go along, constitutionalizing anything they think should be protected, and abolishing and right they don't think should be protected."