[DogoDon]

The court's analysis of the level of scrutiny is interesting. The court first notes that under 1st Amendment analysis, either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny can apply, depending on the type of law challenged and the type of speech involved. So it reasons that the same should be true of 2nd Amendment analysis.

It then goes on to say that since the supposed burden on 2nd Amendment rights in this case is clearly less than for the handgun ban in Heller, the level of review for the present case must be intermediate scrutiny.

But the court went on to analyze the statute under strict scrutiny also, and found that it passes constitutional muster even under the higher standard.

I think the court's indication that either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny (or, in the right circumstances, even rational basis review) can apply to 2A challenges depending on the exact circumstances could be helpful to future courts.