I have been waiting for this. With the bruen ruling requiring strict scrutiny for anything relating to the second amendment I expect the courts to invalidate the batfe rules.
I think I now agree that the Bruen decision is better than you describe. Once it is decided that our Second Amendment rights are implicated, the decision goes to us regardless of any justification that the government may offer.
I would like to see a successful challenge to the requirement for serial numbers. That infringement alone has enabled much additional infringement.
Bruen argues that the starting premise of "shall not be abridged" is "shall not be abridged." But since some gun control regulations were considered permissible in the past closer to the Founding, we should look at those to see if current restrictions are compatible with the 2nd Amendment.
Thomas' opinion basically restricts that historical survey to pre-Civil War restrictions which mainly restricted concealed carry (no Dillingers at card games) and carrying of weapons in public in a manner designed to intimidate. Post Civil War restrictions are disallowed (like the Sullivan Act) because of corrupt motives (racism, Tammany Hall).
That's about all the restrictions the opinion allows, unless the firearm is unusual and unusually dangerous. So modern "assault weapons" must be permitted because they are in widespread use but fully automatic weapons may be restricted. I know the latter is begging the question since both the NFA and 1986 law have acted to severely restrict ownership of full-auto firearms.
So in my reading all the AWB's, magazine limits and other such restrictions are now toast, and the ATF's attempts to restrict homemade firearms are also probably toast under the 2nd Amendment and the fact that they are twisting the 1968 GCA's definition of a firearm beyond any recognition.