It doesn't take a liar, I mean lawyer to understand the 2nd amendment. The 5th column may have made you believe it does, but that doesn't make it so.
The DA, being educated in law, should be the first to see the violation. He does (correct me if I'm wrong) take an oath to uphold the Constitution, so prosecuting a case based on an unconstitutional law is a violation of that oath. If he is not expected to understand the meaning of the Constitution, why is he asked to take that oath?
The supreme court has not directly taken on the issue, so it stands to reason that he has to use his judgement. His judgement HAS to be based on the simple wording of the 2nd and not on some contrived, leftist "interpretation" which the 2nd does not need. It is written in simple english, no interpretation necessary.
But the DA also took an oath to uphold the law. We all agree that the law, in it's present form is (seriously) flawed. I think it's intention is good (account for gun in the hands of gangs, felons, and assorted crimials) and the punishment phase is a good thing (if found where they are forbidden, make them pay). But, when a person who has no reason to be denied a weapon (ie without criminal conviction) has a weapon in his home (ie home protection) an exclusion clause should kick in. Whether the exclusion clause is 'self defense', 'protection of property', or something else is a matter for the courts to decide.
I do hope the counstitutionality of this law is challenged, as it appears grievously violated in this case.