One can readily see why a replacement statute must not “differ only in some insignificant
respect” from the enjoined statute. Today, one needs “good reason” to exercise the right. When that
falls by the wayside, perhaps after another decade of litigation, the application fee would be raised to
a million dollars. A decade later, only ambidextrous people can safely carry guns. A decade after
that, Olympic medal marksmanship might be demanded. The list of “new laws” is bounded only by
Defendants’ imagination. Each time, supposedly, exhaustion and litigation would be required anew,
but generations of plaintiffs would ever enjoy a meaningful right.