If such laws go unchallenged, they remain in force. Given that the governments (federal and local in these two examples) had already acted, what was the downside in taking them to court?
Texas doesn't want NY's gun laws, and they shouldn't. But NY doesn't necessarily want Texas' gun laws either.
Are not the citizens of both states entitled to the same RKBA, in your understanding of the Constitution?
Kelo is a good example - one state passed and acted upon a law, a homeowner challenged it - HE LOST. now with that precedent in place, states all over the country are doing the same thing Connecticut did. its happening all over the place now.
my point is - this decision looks good to everyone here, because the pro-2A side won. and clearly the bounds of this case justified this decision, I am all in favor of it.
but there are alot of twists and turns to the guns laws across all 50 states - carry laws, guns for felons, guns for people with orders of protection against them, some americans want to own automatic weapons, and on and on. do we let the federal judiciary decide all aspects of this? because once they do, everyone gets those laws, in every state.