But it is good to analyze the possibilities in advance of the case being heard. To dismiss it as mere "speculation" is unfair.
It seems to little old me that most of the obfuscation and confusion-generation is based on the old "common law" principles... mainly founded on English Law.
But I have long regarded the Constitution as a new formulation of Common Law and should be read on its own without reference to antiquated principles, even while admitting to various flaws exposed by time.
I too was around when GCA 68 was being thrashed out, and the above concept occurred to me back then. It was a big surprise to many in the gun community that GCA 68 could and did get passed.
But what the heck, at the age of 29, I had a living to make and had the usual personal battles to fight and figured GCA 68 would ultimately be shot down in the Courts either as a whole or part-by-part.
But... the obfuscators and word-warpers won out.
And I still wonder what became of the motivations of "a number of the States" in wanting to solidify certain rights, according to the Preamble of the Bill Of Rights:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
You can't warp those words....
Terry, 230RN