Neither.
McDonald would only
open up the possibility of court challenges, and decisions, to determine what "infringed" means. Since most of these laws are State laws, you need McDonald to have standing.
California does not have RKBA in its Constitution. Idaho does. A challenge here would probably be an in-state affair. In California, you have nobody to sue, unless the McDonald ruling finds that Californians are entitled to RKBA under the 2nd Amendment as applied by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Otherwise, you have absolutely no guaranteed right to keep or bear arms in California.
THAT is why McDonald matters so much in a few states, including California. It would mean that you can sue for your right to keep and bear arms. That would not
automatically change any current laws, though.
So far, there hasn't been a court case that decided whether "may issue" or magazine size limits are an "infringement" of the 2nd Amendment (or due process in the case of "may issue"), no matter how you and I feel about it...
Keep your powder dry and your fingers crossed, and support NRA, SAF, et al.