That is extremely tortured, but confirms the fact that a stronger case should have been made. However, the problem is apparently that no-one has yet been injured, and it .
00is quite common for judges to require an actual ‘injury’, not an expectation that there might be one in the future. Now if someone could show they were wounded while defending themselves because they ran out of ammo in their too-small magazines........
Nom even with a stronger case
they would have thrown out standing, not even actual injury
could stop this — the USSC did exactly this when they threw out the Prop 8 case (claiming the people of CA had no standing) despite the CA supreme court having certified that the people did, and despite the very obvious injury of the people's amending their own State's constitution being rejected as invalid by a third party [federal judges].