Me, too.

Based on the oral argument, a whole lot of commentators are predicting at least a majority for the proposition that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.  Is it too much to hope for unanimity on that point?  I think not.  (What a sweet smackdown that would be...)

Some have conjectured that it's being written by Scalia, but who knows?

I predict a majority for the "individual right" view, along with a majority for the position that the D.C. ban is an unreasonable infringement of the citizens' individual right to keep and bear arms.

Will the Supremes set out some meaningful standard of review for similar laws?  Seems like they'd have to.  If so, what?  Strict scrutiny (i.e., "hands off")?  Rational basis (i.e., serious deference to local authority)?  Some intermediate standard (i.e., "make it up as you go along")?

Feel free to share your predictions, if any, below.