The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 as a mean to get rid of automatic weapons. Despite every idiotic politician and talking head, there are few real automatic (that means machine gun) out on the street. At the heart of the recent ruling is that law has to built on a good foundation. So, any argument has to come from the text of the Constitution and not some made up law or precedent passed later on.
The NFA is being challenged in court with that ruling in mind. I've seen excerpts of the 1934 law and they clearly state that they were trying to do a work around with taxes because they doubted the constitutionality of a ban. That's a strike against the NFA. It is also apparent the 1934 law was based on laws from the decade before and not the constitution. That's strike two.
Anyway, we don't need a third strike if this court is to be consistent. They would have to strike down the NFA and the mega tax on automatic weapons. Just in time for the coming revolution or to fight back against the far-left insurrection.
So far just an opinion. Might take a couple of years to work its way up the food chain.