The assassination attempt
Matt Taibi has some useful thoughts. I'll add some.
Scott Adams (who in addition to being a great cartoonist, is a student of persuasion) wrote about the rhetoric (in its real term, persuasive communication) of the Trump v. Hillary campaign. On Hillary's side, it initially tried to make fun of Trump, or portray him as a bumbling character. That didn't succeed. Usually, it was low-grade to boot.
Then, he suspects, one of the true experts in persuasion joined her campaign. He'd been with Bernie Sanders, but when Sanders dropped out he became a free agent.
And suddenly, her campaign's persuasion became weapons-grade. It acquired a theme -- Donald Trump is a dark force. The word "dark" was constantly used, and everything was related to that. He's a buddy of Putin, he's a future dictator, he's a xenophobe and a racist and misogynist. He can hardly wait to impose a right-wing tyranny on this country and become president for life. In this campaign, it continues (notwithstanding the fact that Trump hardly got tyrannical during his first term).
Adams also foresaw the effect of his winning. Half the country becomes convinced we just elected a Hitler. Well, if Hitler is making a second run at power....
If you look at the current persuasion: the Republican pitch is (or will be once Biden is officially nominated), Biden is a bumbling fellow going into senile dementia, and Harris is a cackling fool, and both are serving whoever can rub two brain cells together. Result of this belief is laughter and perhaps pity. The Demo pitch is Trump is a tyrant, an incipient Hitler, who will oppress everyone we agree with. Result of this belief is...
Wondering about the impact of this on 18 USC §922(o)
At Volokh Conspiracy, discussion of a case holding unconstitutional the federal ban on private "stills." Part of the reasoning is that the taxing power is limited to, well, taxes, and a prohibition on private stills raises no taxes. Nor is it "necessary and proper," since it does not punish non-payment of a tax, but imposes a penalty on people before the tax is due (i.e. liquor has been distilled).
Ruling on restraining order
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Volokh discusses a recent Ohio ruling. The plaintiff is the county coroner, the defendant someone who wanted some records, and got quite obsessive and obnoxious about it. The trial court issued a protective order forbidding the defendant to mention the coroner's name online, and forbidding him to possess firearms. The Court of Appeals held that the first restriction violated freedom of speech, and the second violated the right to arms.
The Supreme Court recently upheld 18 USC §922(g)(1), which forbids firearms possession by those subject to a restraining order issued after a finding that the person posed a "credible threat" to a family member. The Ohio decision suggests there may be a valid challenge to §922(g)(2), which forbids firearms possession by a person who is restrained from "harassing, stalking, or threatening" a family member, and where the restraining order "explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury." The (g)(2) order requires no finding of a credible threat.