> For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.

AFAICT, that’s the practical effect of a holding of an single intermediate appellate court this year on an issue that while important on its own was kind of a side issue in a campaign finance case, and the rationale seems a bit wobbly; and it's logic actually assumes as a starting point hat non-immigrant visa holders having the same 2A rights as everyone else.

While it is for the moment binding precedent within the 9th Circuit, I wouldn't draw any broad generalizations from it, or, even, assume it will hold up on the future.