The court looks to be throwin’ a bone to the next guy, by not discussing it (except to say that in this case, the plaintiff didn’t challenge licensing). Sounds kind of like a “hint, hint, do it this way next time” to me.
This ruling says nothing about guns on the streets. Says nothing about already existing felony conviction, mental problem, (and various other) preclusions from gun ownership. He's already out spinning that which doesn't apply.
Another thing I haven't seen addressed is how DC is a federal district, not a state. Can't automatically apply everything in this ruling. Have to read it thoroughly.