Any opinions on whether standing is really an issue?
Methinks the challenges to "standing" have gotten to the point where
nobody can achieve it without criminal indictment - at which point judges, in gun cases, usually will do anything to convict 'em. This, of course, shows a preposterous notion of the subject, and lawyers would do well to avoid the subject at all costs lest they become the example of reducto ad absurdum.
Put another way: if normal citizens with a well-formed legitimate grievance can't ask a court to evaluate & resolve the issue, our system collapses. The "standing" issue has been used to throw out any and all non-criminal cases regarding RKBA, practically rendering the judicial route pointless. In the "boxes" theory, that only leaves one box left ... and judges would thus be wise to take at least a few cases.
In this particular case, challenging standing seems pretty dumb for the defense. Someone lawfully owns a gun in DC - but can't move it from one room to another while locked, much less actually shoot a violent intruder with it? if the 2nd Amendment means anything at all, the plaintiff has standing, and the defense could/will look moronic trying to argue otherwise.
'course the other reason standing is not an issue is because the defense didn't get their act together in a number of ways, is scrambling to recover from the errors, and has to deal with having completely screwed up in some areas.