The Bruen decision is now a couple of years old. It's done some good for gun rights, though Rahimi threatens to undo at least some of that good. 

Anti-gunners, however, are still beside themselves over the decision. It undermined a lot of what they want, and while they'll still push for it, they also want to try and force the courts to overturn the decision entirely.

But again, it's been a couple of years.

Only, it seems that some are still worked up about the decision like it was just last week.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen has reshaped how American courts evaluate gun control laws, paving the way for a significant challenge to existing federal restrictions. By requiring that all gun laws align with historical precedents from the 18th century, the decision has set a high bar for modern firearm regulations to withstand scrutiny.

This change is already triggering a wave of challenges to federal laws, with serious implications for gun safety in the US. And, as AOAV has always contested, what happens in the US gun world has reverberations far beyond her shining shores.

Again, this is a two-year-old ruling, and they're mostly acting like it just happened. 

What's more, they go on to mention Rahimi, and yet they present that case like it was a win for our side, further restricting what gun control laws could survive constitutional muster when the decision actually opened the door for more restrictions than Bruen did.

This, however, isn't a new case, either. Rahimi wasn't last week, either, so I fail to see how this particular bit of discussion is now suddenly relevant.

The Threat to Red Flag Laws and Background Checks
One of the most significant areas of concern is the potential for red flag laws to be dismantled. These laws allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others, and have been credited with preventing many tragedies. However, since they lack direct historical analogues, they may be vulnerable to legal challenges under the new Bruenframework.

Similarly, federal background checks—one of the primary safeguards in preventing gun sales to dangerous individuals—are now being questioned. Since the Founding Era had no equivalent system, the future of background checks is now in doubt, and courts may be forced to strike down this critical protection in the face of new challenges.

The truth is that red flag laws are unconstitutional. They're both a violation of people's Second Amendment rights and a violation of their right to due process. Just because a court does it doesn't mean they got due process, after all. Not when I can walk in, declare someone threatened me--and we know of at least one case where the supposed threat was learned of second-hand--and get their rights stripped without them being able to defend themselves then and there.

As for background checks, fat chance of that happening. Oh, I'd love to see it, but as we saw with Rahimi and we're likely to see with Vanderstock, the Court isn't exactly interested in overturning everything that involves guns.

The Possible Revival of Section 925(c)
Amidst this wave of challenges, one overlooked aspect of federal gun law may re-emerge: Section 925(c) of the Gun Control Act. This provision, which allows individuals barred from gun ownership to apply for relief, has been effectively defunct since 1992 due to a lack of funding. However, as more laws are struck down or weakened, there could be growing pressure to revive this process.

If Section 925(c) were to be funded again, it would provide a legal pathway for those previously prohibited from owning firearms—such as non-violent felons or individuals with certain mental health histories—to have their gun rights restored. While this may be seen as a step toward justice for some, it also risks further complicating the landscape of gun safety in the U.S., potentially making it easier for individuals with troubling histories to regain access to firearms.

Yes, that would be awful, allowing people who have paid their debt to society to have a pathway toward the full restoration of their rights. 

Keep in mind that Second 925(C) was never a rubber stamp. There's an ATF investigation into the person, then the Attorney General's office looks at the information and decides to grant relief for these people.

What they're complaining about is the fact that anyone might get their gun rights back. That's because they don't want you to have your gun rights.

They're just trying to figure out how to strip you and me of ours. The last thing they want is for federal authorities to do an exhaustive search into someone, determine they're not a threat, then restore their right to keep and bear arms while also trying to take all of our right to keep and bear arms away.

But overall, what we have here is an entity that's still salty about the loss in Bruen and have to raise alarm bells as if it just happened.

Kind of sad, really.