Interesting, thanks HPD.
It's a horrible horrible ruling. I can't even imagine what sort of olympian logical leaps they used to formulate their reasoning.
The problem is that there is no logical leap to make that type of ruling other than in the Judge's mind.
The commercial and private sale of firearms took place when the Constitution was written and has continued from that day until the 1934 Fire Arms Act thus it is covered under the Bruen ruling.
True, but beyond being a 2A issue (which, if you can't buy or sell guns commercially you axiomatically can not keep or bear them), commercial sale of ANYTHING is outlined under several main-body constitutional clauses. The commerce clause for interstate sale, being the primary one. But lately, I am prone to arguing more that even if a right isn't specifically enumerated in BOR 1-8, it is and should be argued under #9, with a simple showing of free exercise of that right. Most attorneys don't have the time (nor are granted the money) to spend arguing every point, so they just use the "put our best foot forward" method and then scramble when that one gets shot down.