The problem being is that those writing the decisions do not game plan the pushback when they consider the issues. My naive view is that they lack strategic and tactical focus. They get lost in the weeds of past precedents and obscure principle as solving the problem of the moment and don't realize their discussions leave major loopholes. They do not have an everyday view of how gun rights are utilized. Thus, Scalia and Thomas fell into traps (yes, Scalia had to bow to Kennedy and Thomas - who knows what his clerks fed to him). They need to focus on protecting and enhancing gun rights clearly and unambiguously.
Unless a Justice carried in every day environs, competed, etc. - they probably don't know squat about what we do every day.
Not the court, but I recall Sec. DeVos when asked why we should carry in schools, said some idiocy about Grizzly bears. Parkland, VT, Sandy Hook - not bears. Also Senator Thune when asked about ARs, said - well, folks use them on prairie dogs.
That's the problem. I know in my professional life in academic debates and presentations, we always practiced and red teamed rebuttals.
