One does not have just one right at a time, one has all their rights all the time.

That may be what one wants, but I’m not sure that that’s actually what SCOTUS would say. I bet that there are laws somewhere about carrying while under the influence.

googles

Sounds like it.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-it-illegal-possess-a-firearm-while-under-influence

It is almost always a crime to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

In Wisconsin, an example:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/05/04/court-finds-intoxication-voids-right-carry-gun-even-own-home/4931641001/

Even in your own home, you can’t carry a gun while drunk unless acting in self-defense

I don’t know if that has gone to SCOTUS, but I don’t think that situational laws are just an NYC foible.

Now, being at a political protest and being under the influence may not be exactly comparable situations, but I wouldn’t be so sure that SCOTUS will rule that any situational law is unconstitutional.

EDIT: And that being said, it sounds like the Wisconsin Supreme Court was ruling on alcohol based on interpretation of what was considered acceptable at the time the Constitution went through when it comes to carrying while being intoxicated, and I’m not sure that the same reasoning would support restrictions at protests:

Christen thought a famous 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case about gun rights was squarely in his favor. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, apart from any militia, and rejected the city’s ban on handguns and restrictions on how long guns must be stored in homes.

But the trial judge and Court of Appeals pointed out the Heller case assured that right for “law abiding, responsible citizens.”

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler observed that laws against intoxicated use of weapons were in place around the time of the nation’s founding in the 18th century.

Wisconsin’s law doesn’t ban ownership of a gun, the court notes, just carrying it while intoxicated, so Christen’s core Second Amendment rights weren’t at risk. That means the law need only be “substantially related” to a legitimate government purpose.

That, the majority found, was to advance public safety and protect people from the often volatile, sometimes deadly combination of guns and alcohol.