I agree that stating that self defense or "bearing arms" must be evaluated with strict scrutiny is a huge.
I just don't see how it affects those courts that have been evaluating 2A cases on a rational basis and then have been saying that they used "scrutiny"
The disconnect with those judges isn't that they don't know what strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny is, or what Jensen referred to as "near strict" scrutiny. Those judges are deciding cases on a rational basis and declaring that it passes muster for scrutiny.
Just looking at what gets regulated and to what extent, I think between Peruta and Moore we can say that government can deny OC or CC but they can't deny both.
I think the same principle applies to handguns and long arms. Judges Davis and King mentioned that Woollard could walk down the street with a shotgun if he chose to do so..
We may be entering a realm of thinking that says government only has to allow citizens some means of defending themselves, either CC or OC, but once that is provided for in some form, then other areas can be regulated. So theoretically a state could regulate the heck out of rifles and shotguns if they'd already provided for the right of self defense in the area of handguns.
Judges may not apply strict scrutiny to things like Micro-Stamping, mag-caps and bullet buttons because they can say right off the bat that these issues are not self defense / RTKBA issues since the state has already met the requirements to provide citizens with some means of bearing arms. They can say that the right to bear arms has already been met with the state's CC or OC laws therefor Micro-Stamping is not a "right to bear arms" issue at all.
I certainly hope I'm wrong, but the two issues that I see Peruta affecting most strongly are may issue and fees like in Kwong, Micro-Stamping and mag caps - not so much.
That reminds me the deadline date to file for cert in Kwong was 2 weeks ago right?