Incrementalism wins these cases. I understand why it’s frustrating, but the result of everyone filing lawsuits is that a leftist court can pick loser cases and use those to establish the law. Then they just dismiss all the others out of hand under the rule that the leftist court established because judges have strong incentives to move their dockets quickly and nothing is quicker than a fast dismissal without discovery or trial.
In 2A litigation there’s attorneys out there who file cases constantly and have gained a reputation for being able to lose really good cases because they either suck as lawyers or because they use it as a money mill to raise donations.
My theory is that you get enough cases in enough jurisdictions that you PLAN on conflicting verdicts. The Leftist judges of course rule as they will, but you ensure as many or more constitutionalist judges give correct verdicts - and then compel the higher courts to face a plethora of well-reasoned rulings against a few “because I said so” activists.
I appreciate your perspective, wanting well-reasoned incrementalism. Problem is we’re not incrementing enough (I’ve been following this stuff for 30+ years now, and we’ve barely achieved the right to keep _a_ gun in one’s home, while keeping an M16 in the car is practically impossible).