You still haven't support "vast majority".
lol.... Yes, I have. But since you need more, your bestest buddies at the Brady Center point out:
Since Heller, state and federal courts have heard over a thousand Second Amendment challenges to gun laws. 90% of those cases, the courts have rejected the challenge, essentially adopting the Brady view that Heller does not prohibit common-sense gun laws.
The courts have repeatedly held that Heller does not provide a basis to overturn bans on the public carry of firearms, assault weapons, and large capacity magazines. They have also overwhelmingly held that Heller allows for reasonable restrictions on dangerous people possessing and owning firearms, and has upheld safety regulations regarding firearms training, storage, and design.
https://brady-static.s3.amazonaws.c...SecondAmendmentAndPublicSafetyAfterHeller.pdf
And from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence's 2017 "Post-Heller Litigation Summary":
Since Heller and McDonald, courts have been inundated with claims that various federal, state, and local laws regulating firearms violate the Second Amendment. These claims have been asserted in both civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions—and the vast majority of them have failed. Altogether, in the more than 1,150 state and federal court decisions tracked by the Law Center since Heller, courts have rejected the Second Amendment challenges 94% of the time.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-c...Post-Heller-Litigation-Summary-2017-April.pdf
So yeah. When 90-94% of challenges to gun laws fail, it is reasonable to conclude that "the vast majority of gun laws are constitutional."
I'm reasonably confident this is not the first time I've pointed this out to you.
There was no exhaustive list, which is why any gun control law other than those mentioned needs to be reviewed on its own merits.
In other words: It is not the case that the SCOTUS was "specific in what infringements might be considered as Constitutional." Thanks for agreeing with me.
We've seen Heller used to overturn gun laws in lower courts in cases like Young v Hawaii and Maloney v Singas.
"We've" seen almost no changes to gun laws after
Heller. Of course, almost all of those 3 rulings would have been the same without
Heller -- e.g. it isn't hard at all to imagine
Caetano favoring the defendant based on pre-
Heller precedents and legal reasoning.
Regarding the number of cases taken up by SCOTUS... SCOTUS typically only reviews about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year.
That's nice. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that
even after Heller, the SCOTUS has refused to review the vast majority of challenges to gun regulations.
Yet the City of New York insisted for seven years that the law was both Constitutional and necessary for the safety of its citizens all the way to the 2nd Circuit Court, and only backed down from this position when SCOTUS threatened to review.
Yeah, not so much. As I already pointed out, NYC didn't completely eliminate premises permits. What they did was remove the limitation on transporting a premise-permitted firearm to a domicile or shooting range outside of NYC.
And again...
The SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to gun laws for nearly 9 years before that case. That hardly indicates sweeping changes by the courts.
It's the four conservatives and the four liberals who don't trust Roberts. If either side knew which way he'd jump the four justices who would be supported would gladly take up 2A cases.
Please, spare us the
Federalist nonsense. If that was true, then why did they take up NYSRPA's case?
I'd say that using terms like "rabid conservatives" and "gun rights extremists" shows who is biased here.
Or, I need to resort to those terms, because your claims are so clearly in conflict with reality.