"Only if the judicial system follows the law and the Constitution, which has been rare in recent history."
If the judicial system follows the law, he will lose. If it follows the Constitution, he will win. It is important here to make the point that it is the law which is unconstitutional. That's what these two guys are trying to demonstrate by going to jail.
All laws must follow the Constitution. The problem is, as we have seen in the Supreme Court, how one interprets the Constitution. The Second Amendment, however, is intentitional very clear. Our Founding Fathers already knew if it weren't, there would be room for various interpretations. This will be prosecuted, first, through the state District Court. Later appeals (if he's convicted) can be taken to the Federal Court of Appeals. They can overrule the local municipal/state laws, stating it is un-Constitutional and must be repealed. I am hoping this occurs.
An unconstitutional statute [or act, ordinance, or regulation] is not law; it is void from the moment of inception, not merely from the moment it is struck down.
The ordinance in this case is unconstitutional; it is therefore not a law. To use the term "law" to describe such an ordinance is to grant it legitimacy it does not rightly possess.