I love the smell of napalm in the morning....

The question that needs asking is "Do these laws actually enhance public safety, and if so show me the data"

Liberal tears make the best gun lube. Cry harder, my collection continues to grow.

@Pete - What you are saying is that you want to return to interest balancing? That is exactly what the USSC said is not allowed. Enumerated rights should not be decided by the side with the best lies, damn lies, and statistics. Justice Thomas has provided a nice, simple test to apply, don't muddy it up.

The question that really needs to be asked is, Does this law fall more heavily on violent criminals than on the law abiding? The answer is almost always BLOODY HELL NO! But I admit, the Bruen test seems to be pretty effective.

I do wish that the SC would point out that, yes, even the First Amendment is unlimited, but those limitations have to do with speech that directly commits an actual crime. The right to free speech does not excuse fraud; the right to free religion does not excuse child sacrifice; and the right to assembly does not excuse riot. But prohibiting speech, worship, or assembly because someone MIGHT commit those crimes is known as "prior restraint", which is anathema.

Gah. Sense-reversing typo detected: "Not even the First Amendment is unlimited."

"...resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to [get around] it."

Fixed it.

Tried using html strikethrough tag but didn't work.

Judge George Wu “until there is nothing left whatsoever other than an entirely-bulletproof and unrestrained Second Amendment.”
Exactly!

The question that needs to be asked is why can't these judges accept a SCOTUS decision as law of the land?
You know, like what they all said after the Obamacare decision.