I read it as the courts are saying that any law that is restrictive in nature is unconstitutional therefore the NFA is unconstitutional because it is restrictive in nature.
That's not what the court said at all. Tyler's case was dismissed at the district court level because the government said he hadn't stated a claim, and the court bought that. The appeals court said that Tyler HAD stated a claim: that his Second Amendment rights were violated. The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court with a directive that
IF the gooberment doesn't dispute the facts [supporting Tyler's claim that he is not a danger to anyone and therefore should not be deprived of a fundamental right], the court must find the law unconstitutional.
Which means it ain't over yet, and if the gooberment can show sufficient reason to convince the court that Tyler is a danger, the law presumably will not be found unconstitutional.