It's been over two years since the Bruen decision up and changed just about everything. Suddenly, judges couldn't inject their own opinions into cases under the idea of intermediate scrutiny justifying gun control. There was a standard that had to be met, and it was one that made sense from an originalist standpoint: Did the Founding Fathers have a similar law, showing they didn't see it as an infringement?

Since then, we've seen a number of challenges to gun laws being successful because of that decision.

Not everything has been sunshine and daisies, unfortunately, but there's been a lot more good than bad. And it seems the media is continuing to note just that.

More than two years after the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally expanded its interpretation of the Second Amendment, federal courts throughout the country continue to strike down state restrictions on gun ownership.

Since the high court’s 2022 decision — in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen — that firearm regulations must have some historical comparison going back to the country’s founding, some state restrictions have been ruled unconstitutional. But lower courts are still figuring out the limits of that historical test and have not yet come to a broad agreement on key gun-related laws.

Still, wins for gun rights supporters have mounted. Over the past two years, federal courts have struck down bans on assault weapons in trend-setting blue states such as California and Illinois.

In October, a federal district court judge ruled that New York’s ban on carrying a concealed firearm on private property open to the public is unconstitutional.

In September, a federal district court judge in northern Illinois ruled the state’s ban on carrying a concealed firearm on public transit violated the Second Amendment.

And in July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that found Minnesota’s age restriction on residents carrying a handgun in public also was unconstitutional.

It has been a busy time for gun rights attorneys, such as Bill Sack, director of legal operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Washington-based legal advocacy organization that has flooded the courts with challenges to gun regulations nationwide.

“The second Bruen came down, there was the starting gun for a sprint, for which we have not stopped yet,” he told Stateline. “Stuff is ripe for a fresh challenge.”

There's nothing new here. There haven't been any cases in the very recent past to warrant any media outlet talking about Bruen and its effects, so I can't help but ask, "Why now?"

See, most people don't look at gun-related news the way I do. They don't actively seek out everything Google News or other aggregation methods lists as the important stories of the day. They may follow a couple of sites like us--and thanks for that, by the way--and maybe some of the other general news sites. They might follow some 2A types on social media and get their news through them/us.

I look at tons, and most of it lately has been about so-called ghost guns.

My own take is that what we're seeing above is battlespace prep. Someone decided to talk about how the laws are being successfully challenged perhaps as a way to warn anti-gunners of what they need to be aware of.

While it's unlikely we'll see any federal "ghost gun" regulations gain any traction in Congress, I do think we're going to see proposals in every state in the country that hasn't already banned homemade firearms. That legislation is currently being crafted as we speak, so warning someone about the potential pitfalls is prudent if you want to see such a law survive legal challenges.

And post-Bruen, that's harder than ever.

Then again, maybe I'm just paranoid. It could just be a reporter who thought this was interesting and just took their time trying to get the information right. I'd love for that to be the case.

I'm just too cynical to buy that these days.