[lefteye]

Perhaps I misunderstood these statements in your post:

"For example, the dicta creating the presumptively lawful restrictions on bans on felons, mentally ill, etc. There is no constitutional basis for those, they were not the issue before the court, and poof! SCOTUS created them out of thin air."

I read your statements to mean the referenced dicta created law despite the fact that it was dicta.

Dicta does not have and should not have legal weight.

I did not suggest that all judges/justices have either the ability or the intelligence and knowledge to ignore dicta referenced in written or oral argument. Such a statement might fairly be characterized as ignorant or "disingenuous."