Should those laws have been upheld?
But other than that, you can't actually show how those are Constitutional? We currently have heavy restrictions on abortion in some states. Are those Constitutional? Should those laws have been upheld?
Regarding the state and local bans, it's interesting how the federal courts all had different reasons for upholding the bans:
In Shew v Malloy, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals noted that AR-15s and 30 round magazines could be presumed to be protected by the Second, but made it a strict vs intermediate scrutiny issue.
In Kolbe v Hogan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals originally kicked back the Maryland ban for review under strict scrutiny, but the liberals on the court realized the Pandora's Box that would open and reviewed the case en banc. Their reasoning for upholding the ban is that AR-15s were "weapons of war" "most useful to a military", which seems to ignore the facts that semiautomatic AR-15s haven't been used in war and that the military owns zero while civilians own 20 million. The decision also ignores US v Miller, which affirmed that weapons useful to a militia are protected by the Second Amendment.
In Friedman v Highland Park, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came up with "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces th6e perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit.”
Seems like security theater to me, and ignores the part of the public who would feel safer owning an AR-15 with 30 round magazines. Why aren't their feelings important?