Constitutionality of banning "80% receivers"

While this seems like a 2A supporting article, he advocates for the continued use of what Judge Benitez in the 9th circuit called a “tripartite binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit,” instead of using either the common use or history, text, and tradition tests that the USSC called for in Heller & McDonald. He also advocates for judges to decide if an activity reaches "the core" of the 2nd, which is usually whatever a judge wants it to be. Then this "core" analysis can be used to determine what interest balancing test to apply. This is what’s commonly called the 2A 2-step. Even strict scrutiny can allow a judge with a sufficiently developed vocabulary to put his thumb on the scales and approve of any regulation the state can dream up; I suspect the 9th judges would relish the challenge based on their history. It almost appears as if this article was designed & intended to show how easy it is to build an 80% or "ghost" gun, scare the muggles, and get more people clamoring for regulations. The only thing missing is the author's assertion of "I support the 2nd amendment, but . . . "