Law prof, @PeppLaw; Affiliated Scholar, @DukeFirearmsLaw. I write about constitutional law, esp. Second Amendment. Papers: https://t.co/FxSEdBiQfa
The rule implements changes made in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that revised the definition of what it means to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms which triggers the federal licensing mandate. The revised statutory language says law.cornell.edu/definitions/us…
One notable thing at the start is she makes *fact findings* abt the history & tradition, as opposed to mere legal conclusions. Generally a fact-finder's conclusions abt fact matters get lots of deference on appeal, but courts haven't typically treated historical facts like that. 
One q, tho, is *when* we might expect to see a grant. SCOTUS could conceivably grant cert before the end of the Term. But the 3d Cir's recent decision creating a circuit split on the felon law may make it one the Court wants to consider together w/ Rahimi
Range is a sympathetic plaintiff. He had a decades-old conviction for making false statements to obtain food stamps. According to the terms of federal law, that disqualified him from owning guns for life, even tho the violation was labeled a misdemeanor under PA law. 
Here, the def't had prior drug convictions & argued that the 2nd Am permits prohibiting gun possession only for dangerous people & he didn't qualify. 
The fact these laws take on such outsized importance is due to Bruen's method. & that's reason to criticize it. Bruen creates a bind for govt lawyers in some cases: either allow laws to be struck down or rely on heinous laws. To emphasize, Bruen is why we have this dilemma! 
The court *does* uphold a number of the challenged provisions, including some of the new disqualifying categories--noting that history (as ugly as it may be) supports some categorical disarmament. It's gross that Bruen demands reliance on these laws, but I agree it does. 
The court accurately describes the new test as a two-step approach--despite Bruen's statement that the prior two-step approach was "one step too many." There are just two irreducible inquiries Bruen demands. 
Interestingly, the court notes that the legislature found when it first banned the weapons in 1989 they were not in common use for self defense & since they’ve been prohibited ever since, are still not in common use in CA today. 
I reviewed all adjudicated 2nd Am claims in federal court in the first 8 months after Bruen & found remarkable disruption. 174 decisions weighed in on 2A claims & a surprising amount of them--21 by my count--concluded the state action violated the 2A. 
