Competing Views on Whether the Requirement to Serialize Firearms Violates the Second Amendment

From U.S. v. Reyna, decided yesterday by Judge Robert Miller, Jr. (N.D. Ind.) (for a case reaching the opposite result, see this post):
[ … ]
Guns with obliterated serial numbers belong to “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” so possession of such guns isn’t within the Second Amendment’s scope. Heller. Guns with obliterated serial numbers are useful for criminal activity because identifying who possessed a firearm is more difficult when the serial number is destroyed. By using a gun without a serial number, a criminal ensures he has a greater higher likelihood of evading justice.
Mr. Reyna might be right that a deserialized gun is just as useful for self-defense as a gun with its serial number intact, but that doesn’t suggest that deserialized guns are typically used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
Nice try. Now do Bruen.
Do like Judge Benitez ordered and go find me laws written at the time of the 2A requiring serialization of firearms. I dare you. Supply us with a complete catalog of said laws.
We all know how you want the 2A to read: “Given that intermediate scrutiny allows us to prioritize our view of public safety, the right of law enforcement to know at all times what you’re building in your basement shall not be infringed.”
But the 2A isn’t really about the rights of law enforcement is it, and Bruen did away with the idiotic notion of scrutiny, didn’t it?