My point is the same one I’ve made to you many times. You frequently assert that the Supreme Court made a decision that decided gun possession as an individual liberty. I, as always, tell you that you cannot rely on supreme court decisions as being permanent. There has to be a case that can be argued without citing the 2nd amendment or supreme court decisions to argue in favor of individual gun ownership. This case proves why you shouldn’t ‘rely’ on that decision: new decisions can happen at any time that you won’t like, including a new decision on Heller that revokes the status of gun ownership as an individual right.

When did I say it was truly permanent? I think it’s fair to treat standing law as permanent in the practical day to day sense until something solid comes up to cause a re assessment.

The Supreme Court changing it’s mind and removing the 2nd as an individual right appears so extremely unlikely to me I can’t bring myself to take it very seriously at this time, pending some indications otherwise.

A far more legit worry is more like Roe V Wade. States legislative encroachment. Now that bears watching.