How about a NEW SC ruling..............in my dreams, I suppose

That's what I've been thinking.

I wonder what SC the ruling would be right now?

Scalia is correct in that rights can be attenuated. What should be noted expressly or implicitly is that the attenuation should be for extremely good cause. We can agree that someone who is arrested can be disarmed, or that a prisoner shouldn't have a gun, so he's surrendered his rights. Witnesses or members in a court room shouldn't be armed since tempers are subject to emotional flare-ups and violence is predictable. And so forth. Basically case-by-case situations and temporary disarmament under specific circumstances.

The terminology "shall not infringe" should be taken quite literally, with really just extreme exceptions for extreme circumstances, so obvious as to not need explanation.

What these modern activist courts are doing is wrongly using that attenuation language to ban entire groups of millions of law abiding citizens their general rights to general common arms under day-to-day circumstances. And that is flatly wrong and an illegal infringement.

Great point.

There's a handful of cases and situations which are ripe for appeal to the SCOTUS that hopefully are combined into a overall AWB type case, with "safe storage - already struck down in DC" and other stupid laws all piled into a SCOTUS case.

I'd prefer waiting about a year or until 1 more Constitutional judge is on the Court. Then stomp all that garbage down on a national level.