I know he’s not well liked on here, but Hugh Hewitt had a law professor on his show last week talking about cases involving voter ID laws.
He basically said that they are no longer being decided on their merits. It is all blatantly political, and all about “who’s side are you on?”
Gun laws, it seems, are the same way.
Law schools teach this principle, more or less. That some cases are decided on an “outcome” basis. Pick the outcome, then write the decision. The key to winning is to present an appealing argument to the decider, generally something that will make the decider look good. The argument need not be logical, and there are enough decisions on the books that cases can be cited for absolutely ANY proposition. There is no requirement to cite a case accurately for what it stands for, cherry picking language is encouraged and practiced. All the courts cheat this way. It’s quite clear when one actually studies the cases cited as precedents, and what they are “deemed” to stand for. Quite often, 180 degrees opposed. SCOTUS does that too.