The problem with such laws is someone actually has to have standing to challenge the law.Has ANYONE been prosecuted for violating the past statutes in D.C.? You would have to have probable cause to come in, and find the assembled gun. The owner would then say,
"I heard the guy entering, so I assembled the gun, and took the trigger lock off."
I wonder for the reasons put into the Dicta of the opinion. Without a majority, and, the basic 2A right for the individual, challenging gun laws is like trying to shoot mesquitos in a swamp, with a shotgun. Without the basic right, and, a level of scrutiny, such as strict scrutiny, it's very difficult. I think the majority intended to give us this right, but, they had to make the decision establishing the right not seem as radical as it is. When you think about it, 2A law is one of the most absurd situations ever. You have two big bodies of law, federal and state, that are all now on the chopping block for being overturned. You have a Federal Agency, the BATF, that is now going to be essentially out of a job. Instead of faking shotgun barrels being cut under the legal limit, harassing FFL holders to reduce Kali's gunshops from 6000 to 1500, they are going to have to go back to harassing bars, and try some garbage like they did with third party liability.
State governments that could write laws, and figure they would be on the books for a long time, prior to being challenged, now have to consider that such stuff will fast lane to federal court, since they are screwing with a fundemental right, that I think, hope, pray, will be evaluated under strict scrutiny.
To give you some idea: I'm looking for a law firm to work for, in Kali, that defends the second amendment. Currently, one of our members works to support the write to vote, and, knows only ONE law firm that is in the 2A business in Kali. Everyone else is a single lawyer, working alone.
The ABA wrote a amicus brief supporting D.C. based on the fact that establishing the 2A as an individual law would
overturn massive amounts of established law.
So, my hope is that the way it's written is to make the decision seem less radical then it is, and, to let everyone get used to the idea. Once that's done, fools will write laws that challenge it, SC, or even the appellate SC wannabes in D.C. will write that the laws are unconstitutional, and, all the SC has to do is refuse to hear ONE appeal by D.C., and the Appellate court ruling becomes the law of the land...until the judges in the 9th circuit write an opinion that supports the laws, then we have conflict of law, and the SC steps in...