Did the law actually require connections, or was the law being applied unfairly? If the latter, the correct solution would be to force the law be applied fairly, not just throw out the entire law. Of course, the people who complain about "activist judges" are fine with judges legislating from the bench as long when it's in a way that furthers their agenda...
That's essentially what Bruen decided.
NYC required arbitrary permission from a person rather than just meeting the requirements and following a written process. It also required a special need, distinguishable from the general public; where "special" was left to interpretation.
In one county in California, it was even worse, where it was widely known that the way to get permits was to donate to the sheriff's campaign or furnish the sheriff's office with cool tech and perks.
After Bruen, there still can be a licensing process, but it must be written, and available to everyone who follows the process. Maybe it will be a two-hour safety seminar and some fingerprinting, or maybe it will be a 3 week tactical training course and a blood sample.
Frankly, the decision itself to strike the law was correct, regardless of your political affiliation. It's also fairly low impact... no mass shooter or gangster bothers with a permit anyway (certainly not the racist Buffalo shooter, who wasn't deterred by lack of a permit). Other problems like suicide are entirely unaffected.
The impact comes from the opinion, which sets precedent for how all other firearm laws will be evaluated. If you believe that government should really be in charge of guns, then you aren't going to like it.
Except when the same court in the same week strikes down a state law that makes it marginally more effort to carry a concealed weapon in public.