It should be stated, IMO. The court is acting improperly by evading the Second Amendment argument. And it’s the intent of laws that count—not technicalities.
[Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. If you need legal advice, seek a properly licensed attorney. This is a discussion of public policy.]
That might be a Good Thing, at least for Mr. Krause. Right now, whether the second amendment is a constraint on state and local governments is an unanswered question, legally speaking. The similar provision of the Wisconsin Constitution most definitely does constrain state and local governments.
That provision is:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Couldn't be much clearer, could it? Even concealed carry should be allowed, but I imagine it's argued that a concealed weapon is for nefarious purposes, not "security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. The ones who argue thus are wrong, hoplophobes often are.