If, as some have hypothesized here, that the SCOTUS will incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the P&I clause (either through the NRA's logic or through Gura's), then is it reasonable to assume that the next huge battlefield will be the word "infringed" in the second amendment? If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, per a literal reading, how/what will the SCOTUS use to decide what laws/regulations/licensure procedures would be considered infringing and which one's wouldn't. What about the so-called disqualifications to get an LTC/carry-permit/etc...?
The infringement argument would be thrown out, because you would have to define infringe in the legal sense, that and in the Heller ruling Scalia stated that there can be common sense restrictions, so if a state allows you to keep and bear arms, but only allows certain types (like Mass) they're not infringing in a legal sense because you can still purchase various guns.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it defined more narrowly, but it isn't going to happen.