I think that he does have a point in that there is no case of a first amendment right being removed through judicial process whereas there is clear and common infringement on second amendment rights through the judicial process. In that, there is no compelling state interest in applying prior restraint to the first amendment your rights are always present. There is more of a compelling state interest in regard to the second amendment in that there ARE cases where you no longer have your second amendment rights. I think that another tact can be taken here as well with the idea that illegally obtaining a weapon does violate others rights (namely endangering others health and life). In your case against the right to vote, you apply prior restraint because illegally exercising that right infringes on others voting rights by diminishing them. It is true that legally purchasing and possessing a weapon is not a danger to others and is a right. However, we are not talking about the legal purchase here but the illegal purchase of a weapon. In that respect, is not the illegal purchase and possession of a weapon a danger to others health? If the answer is no, then why are we limiting those individuals right to a firearm in the first place? If that answer truly is no then the courts should not (and really do not have the right) to remove a persons second amendment rights. If that answer is a yes, then you have a good case for the application of prior restraint being a compelling state interest in the purchase and possession of firearms.