But, as I said before, the ruling will leave lots of room for interpretation as to exactly what "common sense gun laws" really means.

The Economist thinks even a narrow ruling could have significant ramifications:

One can rarely be sure what the nine Supreme Court judges are thinking, but there were several hints that at least some of them think the second amendment protects what Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, calls “a general right to bear arms”. If a majority agrees, the DC gun ban, which is the nation’s strictest, will probably be struck down.

But the court’s ruling, which may not come for weeks, will probably be quite narrow. Mr Roberts, for one, prefers to rule narrowly whenever possible. Too wide a decision would threaten every gun curb in the country, perhaps even the national ban on machineguns. But even a narrow ruling could affect similar bans in other cities, like New York.

AccurateShooter.com agrees:

Most legal observers, including our correspondent, Robert Whitley, believe there will be at least 5 votes to overturn the D.C. ban. Whitley cautions however: “I think there will be a recognition of the individual right, and the D.C. ban will probably be invalidated, at least in its current form. But this isn’t the end of the controversy… there will be many more battles ahead. The court will likely try to decide the case narrowly, and many of the justices seem to favor some kind of ‘reasonableness’ test for gun laws that will only lead to more legal challenges in the months and years ahead.”

Reason’s Hit & Run has relevant quotes to show that at least four are on board with the individual rights concept (John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy), and adds:

Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, did not say anything during the oral arguments. But if any justice could be counted on to support a Second Amendment that imposes significant restraints on gun control, it would be him. Thomas is an avowed "original intent" jurist, and the contemporaneous evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as demonstrated in the respondent and amicus briefs (not to mention the appeals court decision overturning D.C.’s gun ban), strongly favors the view that it is about more than state militias.

Here’s an interesting post by Sua Sponte (A Blog by GW Law Students) in which one student details his experience from camping out to be in line to hearing the case. One bit:

So of the hearing, the things that surprised me were that Justice Thomas napped (he asked two questions in the beginning, proceeded to rock in his chair, then napped for a while, then resumed rocking), that the lawyers didn’t seem comfortable speaking (one stuttered a lot at the beginning), and that the lawyers interrupted Justice Ginsburg.

Black Bear Blog analyzes the transcript and concludes:

Lawyers on all sides revealed why the Second Amendment is a difficult one because it is packed with emotion-filled beliefs and arguments, neither side daring to stand firmly in its position.

Our society has become so politically correct that I believe this played a certain role in how far each lawyer was willing to stick his neck out.

Reason Online explains why D.C. vs. Heller is about self defense, and says that it’s really a civil rights case.

Iranian Ajax notes the irony:

You know what is funny? The fact that these liberals at the ACLU are screaming with their head on fire because the NSA wiretaps are eroding the constitution. Yet their own view on the constitution are eroding the constitution. Hmmmm.

Funny how the NRA that supports the preservation of the Constitution is demonized, but the ACLU that supports the same thing is not….hmmm. Irony.