This is a huge win.
The decision came with obvious but important insights.
Capacity bans have no Consititutional basis in the first place. Handguns with capacities of over 15 are among the most commonly owned in the country -- to the point that its a little odd that I don't own one. Still, when I finally did buy a semi-auto, I invested in a 10 round mag.
States with capacity restrictions are all over the map. There's no consensus on the anti-2A side.
The ruling even pointed to the clear greased precipice of these laws.
Yeah, the FBI data show that about three rounds are generally fired in defensive use of force scenarios. That's where most of these anti-2A people are trying to push us. It's one of the clearest "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" policy positions in human history. Still, three rounds is a statistical average. It's an average that includes defensive uses of force in which no shots were fired. Most bad guys do run the moment that their victims show an ability to defend themselves. There are thousands of stories of defensive use of force situations wherein forty shots or more. Biden was calling for "eight shots in a round." Eil Dicken fired ten shots to kill the asshole who was trying to shoot up a mall.
(I had been previously told that the "2.2 shots" number came from FBI data. That's false. It's actually completely anecdotal.)
This wasn't said in the decision; but, I'll make the analogy myself...
Allowing guns while restricting capacity of the magazines is the same thing as allowing access to cameras and restricting access to film.
Capacity bans are restricting to the Second Amendment just like film restrictions would be restrictions to the First Amendment.
Also, again, all of these laws are pro-criminal to anybody with a functioning brain.