"This decision allows California to inconvenience people with hardly any limits as long as their laws do not allow subjective discrimination. Strict scrutiny was not a bad way to go as far as I can tell."
I'm not convinced that strict scrutiny doesn't apply here. But anyway, I think you have it going the wrong way. Intermediate scrutiny would allow more burdens on the right. Strict scrutiny would allow fewer. No scrutiny would allow none. Not more.
I wish I could believe that.
Under strict scrutiny California's permit system would be declared unConstitutional if California was unable to prove that it was compelled (presumably by virtue of the consequences otherwise) to have a permit system.
I see no path to challenge the permit system based on this ruling. Are you suggesting that the permit system in New York was allowed to stand simply because the plaintiffs didn't ask to have it thrown out?
Similarly, the two dozen states which require no permit do not have more crime than the other states. And yet this decision does not address the requirement that a permit be obtained. States that do not require training are doing as well or better than states which do require it. Strict scrutiny would dictate that such requirements not be allowed.
The decision includes a mention that schools are included among "sensitive places". I don't recall when that law has last been scrutinized but I doubt very much that any government could prove that they are compelled by public safety concerns to disallow firearms. So many shootings in schools; so few shootings in gun stores and police stations.
The historical basis for allowing semi-automatic firearms is only as lengthy as the New York law which was just tossed. How will pro-gunners make the case that firearms that didn't exist for the first century of the nation are protected?