This is yet another shoddy decision derived from the fundamentally shoddy decision that came from the Supreme Court in Bruen. No one should be surprised. I don't see how the state's interest in slowing down mass shooters is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the decision seems to ignore the National Firearms Act of 1934.
I'll ask this question against to those that oppose such restrictions, what are the limiting principles of the Second Amendment?
It doesn't cover things that are not arms, and like other rights can be forfeited by someone who violates the rights of others. Within that space it is unrestricted, which is why we still have a lot of work to do to ensure it is properly upheld.
"We should uphold the Second Amendment because it's in the Constitution" is a nonsense tautology, and I say this as someone who leans skeptical of major gun control (in the sense that, while mass gun ownership and the violent psychosis surrounding it is obviously a net negative to societal health, it's also spread too far that an Australia-like solution would be viable).
