20,000 guns laws illegal?

The publication of the Department of Justice's memorialization that the Second Amendment is an individual one, and not the collective or quasi-collective right as some are ought to think, has received a lot of attention around the web. Granted it is a huge read but well worth the time.

Some are bemoaning that it does not address the constitutionality of the existing 20,000 gun laws. Granted it is not everything that some of us wish it was, but the attorneys that prepared it were limited by the question they were asked to render an opinion on. The Department of Justice was asked to opine whether the Second Amendment was an individual one or not, the scope of their response is tailored to that question.

The attorneys did however, in reference to court decision, state;

"These decisions did not analyze, at least not in depth, the Amendment's text or history. Rather, they relied on Tot or Cases (or their progeny), claimed support from Miller, or both. As the Ninth Circuit recently recognized in the course of adhering to its collective-right position, these earlier decisions reached their conclusions "with comparatively little analysis," "largely on the basis of the rather cursory discussion in Miller, and touched only briefly on the merits of the debate." (31)

One could garner from this that the writers are implying that the courts have been either lazy or agenda driven in their deciding the Second Amendment. It does not come right out and say the courts are wrong but it certainly alludes to it based on the use of the words "relied", "comparitively little analysis", "largely on the basis" and "briefly on the merits". By discrediting the courts current perception of Miller and these other cases that are based on Miller they are by proxy indicating that any number of the 20,000 current gun laws are unconstitutional.

Note: All bold highlight is mine for emphisis.