What strategy would you use? Not “what arguments”; we’ve debated those forever on this board. But rather, what legal strategy? That is, given the justices’ legal histories, their apparent predilictions, what viewpoints they’re most likely sympathetic to, how would you present your case to have the best chance of winning? Do you aim for an ultimate final clarification of the 2nd Amendment, or do you try for something less all-or-nothing? On the anti-ban side, do you take the risky step of asking the court to reverse a previous decision and argue that Miller was flat-out wrong? Or do you say that Miller has been misinterpreted, or overextended? Do you try to avoid Miller altogether and base the case solely on the technicalities of the DC law? On the pro-ban side, do you try a minimalist approach based on presuming the law is already on your side? Or do you go for a more proactive defense?