The implication that strict scrutiny does not imply to non-defensive firearms is interesting both in that the standard that does apply is still relatively strict and of course because it suggests that defensive firearms DO enjoy a strict scrutiny standard. It should be a very interesting case.
Which also begs the question of how exactly any particular firearm would be classified as "non-defensive"? It should seem pretty simple to make an argument for ALMOST any firearm to have a potentially defensive purpose.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.