Come on. You don't seriously believe that the egregious BS gun control stuff that states like California and Washington pass was done with an earnest look at the Second Amendment in mind and in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, do you?

Most of the time, yes. And certainly the stuff that actually passed the initial request for a temporary injunction. Unlike Trump's travel ban (and the facially illegal stuff we're talking about hypothetically in these last few posts), generally the legislative leaders in a state will vet their proposed legislation with their lawyers ahead of time. Even if they suspect that the bill will eventually get struck by the courts, if they want it to have some effect until that happens they will figure out how far they can go to possibly avoid the initial temporary injunction.

That doesn't happen by accident. If you want the bill to go into effect for a while pending resolution of the merits, you pay attention to what the contours of the law are. If you pass something that's clearly illegal, you're not going to get more than a few days (if that) of effectiveness.

When someone walks over the border with no ID, then what? They get a quick interview, maybe their picture is taken and maybe they swab some DNA.

....and no guarantee of being released after that. Remember, applying for asylum doesn't mean you get to go free in the U.S. It simply means you won't be deported. The government can always hold you in detention for as long as they want (unless you're a child, which isn't really relevant here). And not having any documents at all puts you at a vastly higher risk of them holding you for a few months while they check you out. It's a phenomenally stupid move for an actual terrorist (as opposed to someone who's simply one of the two million people on the watch list) to not have any ID. Just get a fake or improperly issued Mexican passport and border crossing card and drive through a checkpoint, like literally millions of people every year.

And again, you'd have to actually show some evidence that this was happening or likely to happen - not merely that it was possible, if if you wanted to shut down the asylum process on a national emergency basis. That there was some actual, credible threat that a terrorist would use the asylum process as opposed to any of the far less detectable ways to get into the U.S. Again, given the extreme unlikelihood that someone who had tried to get into the U.S. for the purpose of committing terrorism would respond to being caught by asking for asylum - thus continuing their interaction and detention with authorities for even longer - I can't imagine that this argument has any chance of getting past a judge.