After a quick reading I view the decision as being about as weak as it could be and still strike down the New York ( and California) may-issue laws.
The decision seems to allow the state to dictate the “manner” of carry. It seems to support California’s ban on open carry, though open carry of long guns has roots in our nation’s history when handguns were much less common.
I fear that states limiting magazine capacity may be allowed along with outlawing pistol grips on otherwise protected long guns. I really don’t see the need to dump “strict scrutiny”. It has protected the First Amendment pretty well despite dramatic advances in technology. We need that for the Second Amendment.
The people need long guns to fulfill their Militia function and this decision leans toward mandating handguns for self-defense in public. Does the Second Amendment really require that people own more than one gun? I don’t think so.
There may be states with good gun laws but it will not be a result of this decision. I’m pessimistic about California and see a lot of infringement coming our way from the federal government.
I agree with your take.
I’ll add that SCOTUS has a long-standing practice of allowing the lower courts (Court of Appeal) do the dirty work, even to the extent of interpreting SCOTUS holdings to the point of ineffective, and SCOTUS just lets it go. E.g., abuse of the Presser precedent for decades.
Those aren't issues in this case.
"I really don’t see the need to dump “strict scrutiny”. It has protected the First Amendment pretty well despite dramatic advances in technology. We need that for the Second Amendment."
No scrutiny is better than strict scrutiny.