Quoted: Quoted: The "sporting purposes" bit might be something useful for us to exploit in the future. The courts generally frown on arbitrary and vague legal pronouncements such as these. Nor am I convinced that the various branches of gov't can cede their power to another. Would be a violation of the Constitution, IMO. Better legal minds here can chime in on their opinion, of course. This has me thinking now.   HYPOTHETICALLY Kerry gets elected. He appoints HIS Favorite justices to the Supreme Court Another ban of sorts is passed, or the constitionality of an existing law (import ban, 86 MG ban, etc.) It makes it to the Supreme Court to be decided....

This is why there has not been a real challenge to anti-gunlaws in this country in the past 50 years.
If Kerry gets in we will likely have to wait quite a bit longer. But, nor am I not convinced that there are any liberals truly ready to retire from SCROTUS. Might take awhile. Further, as long as we do not have a supermajority in the Congress the left will fall back to filibuster and stall tactics preventing court appointments until they get back in power.

I am quite convinced that we are not going to retain our freedoms via the political process. However, were the .gov or courts convinced that shredding the Constitution(albeit incrementally) would ultimately result in their complete loss of power, things might change.  Not holding my breath though.