is that just simplifying things a bit much?
A little. Justices want to make a holding that affects as little as possible... this is important for the Court to maintain its legitimacy because if it moves out of step with the nation, the other branches will just ignore it or force it through political pressure to bend (see FDR's court packing plan of '37 - where the justices were threatened to get behind the New Deal or see the number of seats to SCOTUS expand from 9 to 15... obviously with all FDR New Deal friendly appointees). If you overturn what the vast majority of jurisdictions have accepted, then there will be cries of "Activist Judges!" and a big political push to see them removed, marginalized, or replaced.
So look at the legal REALITY of gun control TODAY. There
are bans. There
is registration. There
is restriction, regulation, and control. Not in every jurisdiction, of course, but in many if not most. SCOTUS needs to present a holding that affirms the step they want to go in- the affirmation of an individual right and the unconstitutionality of a total ban on handguns- while affirming (if not expressly, implicitly) those measures already in place. This way they make a decisive step without rocking the world and losing relevance and power. Then, as challenges arrive, they can take further steps towards the direction they want to go, incrementally.
There's nothing new about this. The other side knew that passing gun control was an incremental battle used to define the American perception of the gun slowly over time. The same holds here for us. You rephrase the 2nd as an individual right as important as Free Speech and expressly stated and protected moreso than, say, privacy/abortion, then American perception changes. Overtime even dissenters can come to terms with such a decision and the court can continue to move. Go to fast, you're out of step and anything you do will be seen as purely political and simply get overturned by the next court that comes along.
Again, there IS registration there ARE bans. While certainly some of SCOTUS want nothing more than to overturn these tomorrow, they know better. They know they have to express a legal rule that is in step with TODAY'S regulations so that their holding is seen as legitimate. Then they can add future holdings to enforce the point and tear down gun control.
To use an example, imagine arguing with a hysterical person who is upset at you even if you did nothing wrong. If you open up by stating the objective truth that you did nothing and that their hysteria is unfounded, you'll likely get stonewalled if not make them more upset. Instead, you first apologize- embracing their world view for the sake of communication- then as they calm down, they come around and see that you did nothing and that they were upset about nothing.
This kind of "apologetics" is exactly what Courts have to do. Retroactively produce a rule that reflects the present reality, then use that rule to shape the future through moderate and continued adjustments. If they rule the way some want them to, it's true that- briefly- as a matter of law registration/bans/etc. would be unconstitutional... but the impact that would have on so many jurisdictions would result in a political move that I guarantee would make that holding short-lived. Slow and steady wins here.
