https://survivalblog.com/2023/02/22/clo ... -decision/
Excerpt:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen decision (issued June 23, 2022) was a pivotal ruling. Following up on the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and the McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) decisions, Bruen reaffirmed private gun rights, quite solidly. Up until those three decisions, the Supreme Court had conspicuously ignored taking up any Second Amendment cases, for more than 50 years. But now, the highest court has made it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms is nigh-on absolute.
RTWTFIRING THE OTHER BARREL
Just days after the Bruen decision was handed down, the Supreme Court also issued a decision in the West Virginia v. EPA case. This case will have a profound effect on executive branch agency rulemaking. By reaffirming that only congress can make new federal laws, the Supreme Court has effectively tied the hands of the “alphabet soup” agencies (EPA, ATF, OSHA, MSA, HUD, DOE, et cetera) in issuing any major rules that amplify or supersede existing laws. Thus, the ATF’s recent absurd redefinition of “frame or receiver” and their repeated waffling on pistol arm braces will almost surely be ruled as executive branch overreach. (Arm-braced pistols didn’t somehow magically become “short-barreled rifles” just because a man from a different political party took office as president.)
There is one more aspect of the Bruen decision that I have not seen mentioned elsewhere. That is that it can now be cited as a defense when someone is accused of violating a “gun control” law, and they are put on trial in a state or Federal level court. A defendant can now point out to a jury Bruen‘s “history, text, and tradition” test. At least with juries in pro-gun ownership states, that defense should be quite helpful in securing a “not guilty” verdict. After all, juries have the power to weigh not just the facts of a case but the law itself.
