The lamestream media told you:

The mayor of Washington D.C. is working diligently to overturn the bad decision of the D.C. Circuit Court that would allow his residents to keep highly dangerous registered handguns assembled and functional in their own homes. He has decided to file papers asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

In a statement of unparalleled ignorance, the mayor of the murder capital of the country said, "Our handgun law has saved countless lives — keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves." To meet the 90-day deadline to file a petition for certiorari, the city will file for a 30-day filing extension.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

An insider with a good understanding of the situation suggests:

Note your calendars, the petition will come around Sept 4 or 5. Asking for time extensions are not favored, so you wouldn't ask the Court for one unless you really needed the time and were going to use it; the limit that can be requested is 60 days. They could have requested less. So if they asked for 30 days, they're going to use them.

Second, review will be granted. Possibly with 9 out of 9 votes [Note: I'm less confident than that]. There is a circuit split on a constitutional question in a case that will be have noticeable impact on the nation's capital and have profound implications nationwide. SCOTUS exists for the primary purposes of resolving legal issues of exactly this nature. This goes to the heart of what they get paid to do.

Third, review will be granted sometime between Oct 15 and Nov 5. Hopefully time extensions will be granted for filing briefs, and if so this could be set for oral argument sometime in March 2008. We will probably not get a decision until the Court's last week in June.

[Note: The most profound observation seems to me to be the widespread recognition that this is a court of people, not laws, and that vote counting is what matters. I do not like that, but it seems to be the case, and is widely acknowledged (under the radar). Pundits are attributing votes before the case is heard and before briefs are written, based on the known biases of the nine Justices. One or two are absolute yeas and nays regardless of what transpires, another one or two are highly likely yeas and nays, and everyone expressing optimism about the outcome, in either direction, are fools. What is likely is that the decision will be narrow to this specific case, not address the at-home-only and registration issues, and the dissent will be incendiary.]