It will be interesting to see how they interpret it so as to allow the vast majority of unconstitutional gun control laws to stand (as they undoubtedly will). From near the end of the article:
"Congress and the states may enact reasonable restrictions to manage the ways in which the populace exercises its right to keep and bear arms, just as reasonable restrictions are imposed on our rights to free speech, free assembly, freedom from search and seizure, and all our other constitutional rights."
Based on the rest of his dissent, the only "reasonable restriction" would be weapons that are NOT for individual use, such as crew-served platforms.
And that is reasonable. However, I fully expect the various alphabet agencies to push hard on the side of the 9th Circus to allow them to retain most of their power. They will NEVER easily give up the little kingdoms they have carefully built at the expense of our rights.
For example, they will argue that the Brady Bill MUST be allowed to stand because the government has a high interest in "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" (ignoring completely that criminals WILL get guns by ignoring the law). This will also be the reasoning for continuing the 1968 GCA and 1934 NFA.
It will be hard to argue that the 1986 Machinegun exclusionary date has done anything other than create criminals and artifically inflate the price of $100 submachine gun to $2000.