Thank you for your opinion. But who are you, and why should we pay attention to your opinion?
I have no idea who this individual is, either. But what's the point of having a means to post anonymously under a screen name if the ideas presented are not assessed on their merits, but rather than on the pedigree of the writer? The clear implication is that the person is unqualified to make assertions on this forum. Were that true, I and many others would have to log off and not return.
I wouldn't be surprised if this writer is yet another screen-name persona of the infuriating "Fabio Gets Goosed", an infamous member of Calguns who is often as correct as he is useless.
Having followed this case closely, I think the court did send up flares at orals indicating that they were being forced into a corner WRT the outcome. These warnings were ignored. That said, there may well be a wider strategy here of which I am unaware, but I am doubtful. The best we might hope for is an intervening decision elsewhere that's either controlling or persuasive, and that directly undermines the reasoning upon which this court relied.
With much respect,