Didn't Heller explicitly state Strict Scrutiny was to be applied where RKBA was concerned as well? And yet, their court went on to repeatedly ignore blatant disobedience to this clear precedent for nine straight years after McDonald...to be honest, they will probably have a hard time trying to justify the opposite course we're all now hoping for without looking like poltically-corrupted activists after tolerating lower court dissent from so many corners for so long (just because they didn't believe the court was politically inclined toward the Heller/McDonald majority judges' personal policy preferences [and yes, that's a reference to Scalia at the end there])
I'm not saying those guys were not doing their best to uphold law and reasoned legal argument, or were plotting to delegitimize a hard-won victory in Heller/McDonald, but the refusal of the court to police its subordinates' brazen disobedience for so long kind of made the bed we're in now where several state/local governments freely toss new spaghetti at the wall without consequence, and appellate courts are rapidly accelerating the anti-gun precedent on the books (because anti-gun laws don't get passed in pro-gun districts, so there isn't as much opportunity for pro-gun precedent to establish itself) ahead of Round Three at SCOTUS. All that stuff makes any re-reinforcement of Heller more impactful, and SCOTUS generally dislikes having a large impact on public policy even if they love being able to take credit for deciding issues "once and for all."
And that's assuming the pro-gun wing of the court is even willing to toss us a bone on this one. After all, SCOTUS hates to stick its neck out on issues that are rapidly evolving until long past the point of inevitability (Obergefell was a rather aggressive advancement of gay rights issues, but gay rights sentiment had also exploded across the country faster than practically any social movement apart from the repeal of Prohibition). More likely (and frankly, more appropriate) they let the US Congress correct federal laws in the interest of the majority --to include pre-empting state/local ones-- than to spearhead the change themselves.
Considering how close we're getting to the point of an Article V convention or more mundane congressionally proposed amendments being immediately adopted by the pro-gun 3/4ths of the 50 states, SCOTUS may rightly view the legal struggles are soon to be mooted.
TCB
Tell me Im in nj 
