Another day, another federal law invalidated under Bruen's new test.

[dpibel]

6. Bruen is the new gun law case

The one where Clarence Thomas declared that you can only regulate guns in ways that they were regulated at or before the time the Constitution was written.

It's a bit odd, since it may reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. That is, it's a bit of a stretch to say that stoners should, per se, be prohibited from possessing firearms. So it was a shitty law, enacted in 1968, which is to say, prime hippie-bashing time.

But the case points out the facial absurdity of the current state of Second Amendment jurisprudence because, as this court reads it, Bruen means that if there was no prohibition against being stoned and armed in 1787, there can be no law against being stoned and armed ever.