The new laws will continue as counters to ambiguous Scotus decisions. This is an unpopular view but I don't think Scotus did a good job. The use of historical precedent as a rule rather than a positive statement of what the 2nd Amendments, shall not statement means leads to anti folks to mine history for precedents that support them. Mentioning, of course sensitive locales, means that anything will be sensitive unless there are years of litigation.
Saying you can't ban Manhattan - Clarence is genius, until NYS, NJ, CA and others come up with opt in rules that ban almost every business - at that takes out Manhattan.
Mentioning weapons type as in Heller led the lower courts to consisting support weapons bans.
Send cases back down the pipe for reconsideration to antigun courts - ridiculous. They will find ways that they think are in accord with history to support the bad laws. So back to Scotus years latter for more ambiguity.
Under the idea of shall not as the precedent - one could have said that:
1. No locale can be banned unless there is a highly technical risk from the firearm - such as the MRI room or in an airplane, chemical plant, the court room - not because you think the carrier will go beserk in the library or mosque, church or synagogue.
2. No semi automatic weapon of 50 caliber or less or any configuration or ability to carry any amount of rounds can be banned. No magazine or ammo carrying device of any capacity can be banned. Nor can other weapons be banned for capacity issues (shotguns, ones with integral mags, etc.). Does this leave full autos out - yep but that could be dealt with on a latter day.
3. No law abiding adult citizen can be forbidden from carrying a firearm after passing a criminal background check or check for adjudicated mental health issue.
That's the way the way to do it, rather than their usual ambiguous blather - which many will praise. Did Heller stop one state AWB - NO. Did it make getting a pistol permit easier in NY - NO. That's why Bruen was filed. It was clear that the CCIA was planned before Bruen's decision to strike back if Bruen was gun positive. That the filers of the suit didn't see this coming or Clarence didn't see this coming - well, draw your own conclusions. Because Bruen might help someone in another state doesn't mean that NYS is truly screwed for years to come. Whoopee - some folks now can get permits without a reason clause and guess what, the permit is pragmatically useless.