I had reservations about this one from the start. The basic argument (which is oddly sidestepped in the ruling) was that the plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise rights were being abrogated because they couldn't carry a gun in church. The easy response from opponents (and one they used) was "well, what religion requires a weapon as a condition of worship?"
The court chose to cast the matter as a conflict between private property rights and the right to self-defense, which really wades into murky waters.
Frankly, the matter should have been settled in the legislature, rather than risking setting adverse caselaw.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.