That isn't what the Bruen decision said.

What the Bruen decision says is that the states cannot deny citizens' rights to bear arms in their own defense with arbitrary or discriminatory permit application systems, such as exists in NY State under the Sullivan Law.

The decision states (explicitly) that states can still legislate parameters of being able to carry a gun, but that they cannot be discriminatory and arbitrary. This isn't a new finding - this is how the Supreme Court has decided against discriminatory laws in many other cases for other constitutional rights.

Here's a nice summary, written by Justice Thomas:

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not a 'second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' (McDonald, 561 US at 780, plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense."