"A city -- any city -- ought to be able to enact a ban at such events without state pre-emption -- especially if it's clear that this represents the majority will."
Personally, I don't have a problem putting to a vote and letting the majority decide. Of course, if we are talking about changing state-wide pre-emption, that would mean putting to a state-wide vote. The San-Fran wannabes will be shocked when they still lose. They have put gun-control measures to a vote before and had them resoundingly defeated. What is clear is that the Mayor's lame idea does NOT represent the majority view.
"We'd like to see this issue solved without expensive litigation. We're counting on the Legislature to make it so."
Then just drop it. The AG's opinion made it pretty clear you don't have a standing if the clearly written law isn't clear enough. If you fight you are going to end up with BOTH things you don't want, pre-emption upheld, and a big fat litigation bill. With any luck you will also make a few gun-owners moderately wealthy after pay-outs to settle the test cases they bring.