I don't see the "bad precedent" in the actual holding of the Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff's license was revoked, perportedly because she has supplied false information. She could have appealed that revocation, but did not. She sued, and was found to have standing, but the court found that the ground for the revocation (providing false information) was a valid reason for revokation. The case wasn't about whether the information was false; it was about whether that is a Constitutionally valid ground to revoke the Class A license.
The court found she did not have standing to challenge the statute as to a Class B license, because she had never applied for one.
The facts could have been more ideal for the result Gura was seeking. But the court didn't really address the "may issue" aspect of the statute.
Send lawyers, guns, and money...