The next time the SCOTUS accepts a 2A case, I wouldn't be surprised to see them address issues like this. I could easily see Thomas and Gorsuch clarifying things like scrutiny, 1983, how Heller has been badly misinterpreted, and so on.
Based on the Wrenn opinion, it seems as though the D.C Circuit has adopted its own test, the "Heller Test" so to speak. Three tiers of scrutiny, and somewhere in there is "Heller-level" scrutiny. What is that? What is the governmental burden under this quasi-fourth tier? Thomas and Gorsuch (and before Gorsuch, Scalia) have already ripped their colleagues in multiple dissents in denial of cert over ignoring Heller, etc.
The problem is that, in 1983 cases, I've seen nominal damages of $1 awarded to Plaintiffs. That's on top of their legal expenses, so five or six figures to litigate the case, but damages are nil. The only way that this gets solved is by hitting them in the wallet. And if that doesn't work, hit them harder. Money talks.
Any Thomas and Gorsuch concurrence would not be the controlling opinion. Just like Alito's concurrence in Caetano (if that were controlling, it would be the death knell to AWBs).
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk