It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right, we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry. It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and fair reading.[1]

I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that.

[1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun ownership to formal militias.

> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787