You just dont get it. Addressing those cases is playing on their court. These laws like Montanas are a clear statement that the state is CLAIMING its lawful 10th amendment rights.
In essence, the state is arguing with the feds. The feds examine the argument in THEIR courts and say, “we win”.
The states simply do not care what those federal rulings say, because those rulings conflict with their States rights as clearly written into the US Constitution. A ruling from a federal court will not be the last word now.
And all of this wouldnt be needed if Obama would clearly, with no artful wording, state that he will NOT sign ANY new gun laws. HIS clear move to dictatorship is the cause of this, so the answer is not to be found in a federal precedent.
Maybe not. But there is no harm whatsoever in asking the state legislators how they plan to defend their citizens against the FEDs, and in particular against case law that holds in favor of federal supremacy.
-- In essence, the state is arguing with the feds. --
Talk is cheap. Not that I object to the sentiment, I applaud it. But it's sentiment and no more. I don't advance my vote to sentimentalists. Either they are effective actors, or they are worth spit.