I just took a quick look at the opinion. The opinion is designated for publication. This is important because courts will sometimes designate opinions as not for publication or as not citable as precedent if the facts are such that they believe it would make bad precedent.
It also appears that the decision was made simply following the guidelines set forth in the Bruen decision. I will try to read the opinion in greater detail, but upon a quick glance I see nothing limiting the result, and it appears that the statute was found unconstitutional.
The opinion will definitely serve as precedent in future cases involving guns, knives, impact weapons, chemical irritants, stun guns, etc.