Gura knows what he's doing. He carefully tailored the Heller case and chose the perfect plantiff. He held his own in oral arguments, and even when cajoled by Scalia, he stuck to the central question of the case.
He's also doing that here. None of his plantiffs are appealing a criminal conviction (which, face it, does color a case). They are ordinary, law-abiding citizens appealing for relief from unjust regulation.
Two of the plantiff's claims are particularly interesting. The first is from the man missing his right arm, who simply wants a Glock with and ambidextrous magazine release. The model he wants is no different, less safe or more lethal than the already-approved one.
The second is the plantiff who wants a gun that is essentially approved, but which is off limits because it's the wrong color.
Both claims show the fallacy of the system as it's currently implemented. The second could have some interesting ramifications, since it focuses on cosmetic features.
Cosmetic features were (and are) the crux of "assault weapon" bans.
Gura knows his stuff, he drafts a good strategy, and he handles himself well. He's got some serious muscle backing him.
Has the NRA thrown their hat in the ring yet? I haven't heard, but this is still quite new.
One last thought: the Brady/VPC axis crows about California being a model for "commonsense" firearms regulation. I imagine they see the 9th as deserting them in Nordyke, and this could overturn another pillar of their canon.
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.