(previous post deleted because it was irreparably wonky)
I'm pretty sure this means that strict scrutiny MUST be applied, which if true, means the end of pretty much all nuisance type gun laws, like the Maryland law.
I liked these parts too:
Our distinguished dissenting colleague asserts that we have imprudently and unnecessarily broken with our sister courts of appeal and infers that we will bear some responsibility for future mass shootings. In our view, inferences of this nature have no place in judicial opinions and we will not respond beyond noting this. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.
In addition, we reject the States argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to detachable magazines because magazines are not firearmsthat is, detachable magazines do not constitute bearable arms that are expressly protected by the Second Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. II. By Marylands logic, the government can circumvent Heller, which established that the State cannot ban handguns kept in the home for self-defense, simply by prohibiting possession of individual components of a handgun, such as the firing pin.
For perspective, we note that in 2012, the number of AR- and AK-style weapons manufactured and imported into the United States was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the most commonly sold vehicle in the United States.