And that isn't going to change the conclusion. Those lawyers who argued the cases still come back to the political and social values that drive courts. That book is a good legal summary, but I'm sure there are others. It happens to be current and historically through.
I'm not going to continue to argue what is already written and try to predict the future. Heller opened the door to protect us from dangerous people, even thought the current courts are extreme in interpretation. We all know this..and I've read the same legal arguments over and over. They still don't seem to be able to refocus on the social science instead of the physical gun even thought that's the opening in the law and the logical way to improve the existing problems. Why debate micro stamping of bullets just to enforce existing criminal law? Just make it harder for dangerous people to get bullets to start with!
That's why I'm suggesting people control not gun control..you can see all these exact debates with citations in the bibliography of an army of lawyers in the 2014 book. That book also has a nice list of current articles that support or refute the same cases you mention. I think the political will and follow up with laws will come from acknowledgement that filtering people is not gun control, but it's protecting the public. The exact court interpretation of some of my list are not entirely tested all the way to the supreme court, but if it's popular enough it can happen.
It's reasonable to protect people from any obvious threat: Ebola, guns, etc. That may require curtailing some right (like enforcing a quarantine) or a right to form a militia or use hate speech! People can be prevented from causing a danger if there is acknowledgement that it's not a gun debate but a safety debate. I still think a license to purchase or possess won't restrict your gun rights, but simply protects the public if you are not safe with a gun. My list doesn't name any particular type of gun or prevent you from self protection or require a national database check for every purchase. There is no restriction on speech. The exact requirements of the license will be tested, but as long as they work (such as a screening that prevents shootings) courts will uphold their legality.
= new reply since forum marked as read