Perhaps not as the 9th has been uncharacteristically (for them) supportive when it come to 2nd amendment rights.
In addition, it points out that the state's "expert" witnesses cannot substantiate or reproduce the factual assertions they made, such as that defensive gun use requires on average only 2.2 rounds. It also points out that other claims, such as that AW are somehow more dangerous, are absurd given that most fire rounds far less damaging than hunting rifles and that the Mini-14 (which is allowed) fires exactly the same 5.56mm round as most AR-15s and also has a detachable magazine.
It's worth reading simply for the judge's sense of humor. For example he quotes the Oakland chief of police saying that he prefers victims not to shoot back because he wants good witnesses. To which the judge replies that the chief apparently did not realize that a dead witness is not a good witness.
The decision might stand because it is remarkably thorough about both the law and the facts.