[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

We already have a confirmed individual right, in common use/lawful purposes language, incorporation against the states and are now (hopefully) about to get meaningful carry.

We also have all the precedents when legislators try to bypass civil rights they don't like (from segregation era) and when they try to bypass SCOTUS rulings they don't like and their constituents don't support (Roe v. Wade). So, all this polling in CA about what people want and legislators pretending that they are respecting 2A is very old news as far as obstructionism goes.

Remember the 2nd Circuit's refusal to import 1st Amendment jurisprudence into the sphere of the 2nd Amendment?

You presume here that the lower courts are going to faithfully apply prior civil rights jurisprudence to 2nd Amendment cases.

They won't. Instead, they will refuse to do so, just as the 2nd Circuit explicitly did. They will hand us loss after loss, insisting that if the Supreme Court means for such jurisprudence to apply, it will, in the words of the MD supreme court, "have to say so more plainly".

The "technicalities" we are being attacked on are already addressed in Heller. They don't require much of new analysis or any paradigm shift to be addressed. Unlike the decades of research and hard work that went into defining 2A as an individual right, the cosmetics and taxes are really small potatoes in the big picture.

Cosmetics, taxes, and other smaller issues can and will combine to neuter the right. That makes them more than "small potatoes".

Honestly, you really aren't looking at this with the proper amount of skepticism.