Much better than 822. The searing question is: will it beat California and Illinois, NYC and Washington DC into compliance?
Shouldn't incorporation of the Second Amendment already do that?
Oh yeah - "longstanding prohibitions" are "presumptively Constitutional" -
DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008);
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, (2010)
All infringements against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, other than the right to keep a handgun within your own dwelling for the specific purpose of self-defense, are subject to Due Process and therefore the opinion of the sitting Court at the time that the case is heard and subject to abrupt reversal in light of new evidence that the sitting Court finds compelling at that moment in time.
Supporters of the Second Amendment got screwed in
Heller and
McDonald; some were glad to bend over and take it, while others were naturally ignorant about the later ramifications of the Due Process route of incorporation and simply ate the propaganda they were fed. To incorporate an Amendment through Due Process is to say that the government is the grantor of that "right", rather than the Amendment being the protector of that Right. That is why I believe that the route that should have been taken through the Courts was Privileges or Immunities or nothing at all.
To compromise toward Due Process just for the sake of Second Amendment incorporation is to say that the People owe their Rights to the government and that government has the authority to take those Rights away.