[jyl]

I chose the second option, allowing "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership.

If that is how the court decides, then its quite possible nothing will change. Most state and local gun control ordinances would probably pass a "reasonableness" test. Normally the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the government, in a reasonableness test.

Maybe a few of the most extreme laws would get invalidated, perhaps only partly. For example, look at the DC ordinance. In DC you essentially cannot own a handgun, but you may own a long gun. Could this be considered "reasonable"? Well, for home defense a shotgun arguably works just fine - lots of people on PPOT have posted that a shotgun is the best choice - so it might be reasonable to permit long guns but not handguns. In the end, things might not change so much in DC, might it? Especially if you wanted a handgun . . .

Same w/ SF, NYC, and a handful of other places with the most restrictive laws. Things might not change much.

As for the less severe gun control ordinances that affect the rest of us - the CA "assault rifle" ban, bans on .50 cal rifles, restrictions on full-auto guns, restrictive concealed-carry laws, etc - it is very likely they would pass a "reasonableness" test.