Following the rulings of the US Supreme Court is a bit of a hobby for me as I have an intense interest in the law, and these individuals by their collective pronouncements determine exactly what the law means. That being said, I think that if this writ of certiori is accepted by the justices and ruled on I think the vote would probably go as follows:
John Paul Stevens: Reject the appellate court ruling (definite)
Antonin Scalia: Affirm the appellate ruling (definite)
Anthony Kennedy: Unkown - tending towards Affirm
David Souter: Reject
Clarence Thomas: Affirm (definite)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Reject (definite)
Stephen Breyer: Reject (definite)
John Roberts: Affirm
Samuel Alito: Affirm
The reasons I put defintite by Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer is because I think that Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer have established themselves as activist judges. Ginsburg and Breyer are big believers in conforming our laws to international laws and think that we should interpret our constitution in light of how the world looks at those rights. Stevens is simply a purely left wing idealogue and has voted that way since he was in office.
Scalia is a strict constructionist and believes in a literal interpretation of the constititution based off of its literal message, as well as framers' intent, and where Scalia goes, you can bet your bottom dollar that Thomas isn't too far behind.
Souter, while I believe to be counted on to vote to reject the appeals court ruling, could possibly surprise everyone with an individual interpretation of the second amendment versus the liberal camps collectivist ideas. So not a definite, but I would say an affirmation from him would be a bit of a surprise.
Alito and Roberts I think can be counted on to affirm the appeal court's ruling, but I didn't list them as a definite since they are firm believers in stare decisis and may potentially strike down the appeal court's ruling based off of established precedent from the other appeal courts.
Kennedy ...... flip a coin. He is the inheritor of O'Connor's position as the swing vote on this court, and I can't begin to think where he would land on this issue. He is a firm believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, but he doesn't particularly care for handguns and could rule with the liberal wing for that reason. If I had to give odds though, I would say 60-40 with 60 being affirm and 40 being reject.
Keep your fingers crossed. If writ is granted, this case could be a huge decision, that is if the court doesn't wimp out and narrowly construe their decision.