"... [T]he right to arms covers arms in general and not this one specific firearm."

Bloody Marvelous! So one is guaranteed the right to possess arms in general, just not any particular arms he or she might actually possess.

I suppose the "right to arms in general" refers to his theoretical ability to acquire another firearm while going through the due process to have his seized "specific arm" returned?

It seems like there must be a potential "disproportionate impact" issue in there somewhere, at least on the portion of the costs due to government licensing /regulation.

If charges were dropped (wrongful arrest?), forcing you to, in essence, permanently expend money to temporarily replace your firearm, when renting one is not an option due to the law, it seems like that ruling would adversely penalize the poor (disproportionately minorities?) who are almost certainly more subject to arbitrary arrest, less likely to own multiple firearms, and less able to justify expending scarce money to buy another firearm to maintain the legitimate exercise of their fundamental rights than are the wealthy.

The logic here is impeccable.

You have the right to free speech, just not "those words".
You have the right to free practice of religion, except the one which the state disapproves.
You have the right to freedom of association... with the "right" people.
The list is endless, as is the power of the state.

This is the statist manifesto!