Al, I disagree.
They're treating him as a visitor. Right? So at least as a secondary argument, if the courts are going to accept the other side's argument that he is NOT any sort of "resident", then he's gotta be a visitor, right?
Fine. So if he's a visitor, there's a specific prohibition by the US Supremes, TWICE (1870 and 1999), that such discrimination against a visitor in any area of basic civil rights (in Ward, the right to engage in commerce) is flat banned. This would go double for any right that is specifically mentioned in the BoR.
(And yes, lawyers do this in pleadings all the time: "your honor, if you accept the other side's view that Mr. Whatever isn't a resident, then he has to be a visitor, therefore Ward v. Maryland and Saenz v. Roe bar the county's conduct even under their own theory of residence".
No state law that I'm aware of has ever tried to discriminate against a resident of another state in any area of the Bill Of Rights except for RKBA issues.
Explain to me why that shouldn't be at least floated as a "plan B", in case the "I'm not a visitor" thing falls apart?
Plan B is a good thing. And the NRA's own attorneys are too ignorant to try.
That's just sad.