Summary of issues in McDonald v. Chicago

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me there's a couple of errors in this discussion:
"Petitioners McDonald, et al., were each in violation of one or another of the gun control laws..."
I don't recall that; as far as I know, none of the petitioners were in any legal trouble. They merely attempted to register legally-owned firearms that were not within Chicago and therefore were not illegally possessed, and were subsequently turned down by the municipality(ies).
I also have trouble accepting their description of Chicago's amicus folks as "Organizations committed to protecting the public’s health, safety, and well-being..."
What, the amici on the petitioners' side are not so committed? What sort of a ridiculous assertion is that?
Hard to get past things like that.