Basically this is good news in terms of guns. I believe it's likely that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will also be replaced during Trump's tenure. The key is to do have it happen before too long, though I'm feeling more confident now that Trump will have a second term, though we can't know for sure.
I think Ruth may have had one or two opinions that could be construed as pro-gun, but her overall philosophy (based on my quick internet search) is that, while she may have had a very rare pro-gun opinion, she also has a very anti-2nd amendment outlook. She has said plainly that the 2nd Amendment's validity is all contingent on the militia clause in the wording. Her contention is that the militia was effectively the US armed forces in the early days of the US Constitution, and little else. Since the US now has a standing Army, the militia, and therefore the 2nd amendment, is irrelevant.
This is a wrong interpretation, because a very significant (if not the exclusive) author of the 2nd Amendment, James Madison, stated very clearly in the Federalist papers (#46) that a militia's purpose would be to repel a standing federal army, if need be. Stated more plainly, the people need to armed against the potential tyranny of a federal government, NOT armed as an agent for the federal government.
Anyway, Ruth is about 85. Sandra Day O'Connor is about the same age, and retired a dozen years ago. Ruth's mind is slipping, too. Here's Federalist #46:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it
