Judge Benitez’ ruling is written in an accessible way — very deliberately, I think — and non-lawyers can read it and follow the law and how Judge Benitez reaches his conclusions, whether you agree with them or not. People who care about the issue should do so.
“I don’t care how he got there, I don’t like this result” is an abdication of civic participation. The rule of law is about identifying the rules that were applied, and how they were applied, and identifying your point of disagreement, rather than calling the result wrong.
“I don’t care how he got there, it’s obviously ridiculous” may feel emotively satisfying but it’s how you further normalize rejecting the rule of law — including many rules that protect you.
Without comment on either the precedents Judge Benitez relies on, or how he applies them, I think he does a good job explaining in an accessible way the rules he’s applying and how he thinks they apply.
With an exception.
The “Swiss Army knife” line at the start of the opinion is an example of a rhetorical flourish that becomes the story and overwhelms the analysis. It is, with all respect to Judge Benitez, a self-indulgence and does not assist with clarity or understanding.
If you hate this ruling, the rule-of-law-supporting thing to do would be to read it, identify what specific underlying rule or conclusion you don’t like (“Heller was wrong” “the commonly used rule is wrong”) and think about how that would be changed within the rule of law.