Everyone knew how the Bruen decision was going to go, at least to some degree or another. What we got was better than I thought, not quite as good as what I hoped. 

For the state of New York, though, what came down was something of a nightmare. It undid everything they hoped to hold onto, though they no doubt had ample reason to know what was coming.

So they passed some extensive concealed carry restrictions. Those restrictions have been the subject of legal battles over the last couple of years. Now, the Court has a chance to do something, and gun rights supporters are hoping they will.

Now, gun rights supporters are urging the Supreme Court to again take up the case, prompting the recent amicus brief filings.

In its brief, the NRA argues that in the split among the federal circuit courts over whether the understanding of the right to keep and bear arms in 1791 (when the Second Amendment was ratified) or 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified) controls, the Supreme Court’s precedents clearly demonstrate that the original 1791 understanding controls. Consequently, the Court should hear the case in order to quickly resolve the dispute.

“The Second Circuit held that ‘1868 and 1791 are both focal points’ of a Second Amendment analysis and that Reconstruction-Era evidence is ‘at least as relevant as evidence from the Founding Era regarding the Second Amendment itself,’” the brief states. “This decision adds to a growing circuit split over which time period controls—a split that results in disparate outcomes in otherwise similar cases. The Second Circuit’s holding—like similar holdings by other courts—is contrary to this Court’s precedents. This Court has strongly indicated that the original 1791 understanding of the Second Amendment controls and that the significance of historical evidence depends on its proximity to the Founding.”

The fact that there are clear conflicts at various federal courts means there is a dire need for clarification from the Court. That’s also something the Supreme Court often looks for when deciding whether or not to take on a case. Disagreements between the lower courts over what previous decisions mean often result in them taking the case.

It’s not universal, though. Look at how assault weapon bans have fared regarding getting a hearing before the Court. There are discrepancies in various rulings, but the Court has yet to take one up. I sincerely hope they will, but so far, no joy.

In this case, though, I’m even more hopeful. They took up the Rahimi case as it deals with Bruen, which this same Court heard. This does as well, which I sincerely hope leads them to accept it.

I just hope this one works out better than Rahimi did for us.

Either way, the confusion over which era controls the direction of gun laws is an important point, and one that most definitely needs to be clearly understood by the lower courts. My own reading was that the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification is what has precedent, but I’m not a federal court judge. Still, this is something the Court should clarify.

Once they do, we can hopefully put an end to some of the stupidity we have in this country.