In Heller was it not stateded that the Second Amendment allowed citizens to own firearms for self defense? The same reasoning was present in the McDonald case.
If the state is saying that they are not allowing firearms to be transported outside the home or property because there is limited law enforcment available. That seems be at odds with both these decisions since the basis for having a firearm is self defense and now the state is saying we will not be able to provide protection to some citizens and we are not going to let you be able to defend yourself.
The argument by Chicago was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. The Supreme Court said it applies to the federal government and the States. I do not see any wiggle room for the state there.
So how can the state argue that we are going to limit your right to self defense when we can not provide protection to you in the case of a emergency caused by nature.
That is not an argument I would want to defend in front of the court in light of Heller and McDonald.
Have a nice day at the range
NRA Life Member