While the Justice Department is appealing Reeves’ ruling [finding the machine gun ban unconstitutional], it is among a growing number of decisions striking down gun laws in the post-Bruen era. At least three rulings in the past year have invalidated federal restrictions on machine guns, once considered settled law. Bruen has also imperiled concealed carry laws, assault weapons bans, and a host of other gun restrictions. A Trace analysis of more than 2,000 challenges to gun laws since Bruen found that a case’s outcome now hinges on conflicting interpretations of America’s complex and often uncomfortable past. As judges, lawyers, and historians argue over what history counts and what it means, gun rights groups have capitalized on the confusion—with sweeping consequences for public safety.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has increased the chances of more gun restrictions being tossed out. The president has ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to reassess how the Justice Department handles legal challenges to federal gun laws—a move that could lead the administration to stop defending them altogether. In April, the Justice Department asked a court for more time to decide whether it would defend the ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. More recently, the department settled a lawsuit over forced-reset triggers, in the process allowing the sale of aftermarket devices that boost a semiautomatic rifle’s rate of fire. …
Bruen has also created an asymmetric battlefield. Because the government bears the burden of justifying its restrictions—and good historical research is expensive—well-funded gun rights groups have a leg up. The Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the gun industry’s trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, have participated in at least 61 cases challenging gun laws under Bruen, the Trace found. Of those cases, nearly half—29—resulted in a ruling finding a gun restriction unconstitutional. Legal wins for gun rights groups used to be far less frequent.
“The gun industry has a clear interest in selling more firearms, which is easier and cheaper if there’s deregulation,” said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director at the gun reform group Giffords. Since Bruen, it has become “less burdensome for them to file all these cases all over the country and then basically point to the government to raise this heavy burden of historical presentation,” she said.
The imbalance in resources often results in judges having to weigh competing interpretations of history—one produced by academics, and the other by gun rights groups’ experts. In many cases, government-hired historians are forced to defend their methods under adversarial cross-examination.
— Chip Brownlee in Musket vs. AR-15: Judges Are Throwing Out Gun Restrictions Because of Antiquated Laws From America’s Founding
Unless SCOTUS decides to stomp these nuts out they will eventually win thanks to the anti-rights orgs essentially being mandatorily taxpayer funded.
I know, I know, muh Bruen. Well, SCOTUS apparently doesn’t give a shit if their ruling is actually followed so it may as well be null.
State divisions will deepen. SCOTUS will keep kicking the can. Eventually anti-rights rulings will be made as the court changes shape. The divided states will dig in. Maybe then we can be done with this charade of unity.
They aren’t being “mandatorily taxpayer funded” any longer and what they did get previously was illegal and was mostly through that USAID money laundering scheme which has been shut down.
” In many cases, government-hired historians are forced to defend their methods under adversarial cross-examination.”
“Because the government bears the burden of justifying its restrictions—and good historical research is expensive—well-funded gun rights groups have a leg up.”
and they should…they are acting as an ‘entity’ of government while working for the government. Government is suppose to be accountable to the people, this means government must justify what they do and, when it comes to the 2A, most justify it in accordance with SCOTUS Buren analysis.
Maybe you forget, for many years there was the ‘unconstitutional’ ‘interest balancing’ scheme used by courts and governments to give governments an assured win in any 2A case (well, most 2A cases) and most cases involving constitutional rights. It was unfair and unjust and discriminatory, it was never suppose to be. But the problem was, if the constitution was followed then governments (i.e. federal, state, county, city) could not gain the power and control over the people they craved to have – thus ‘interest balancing’ was born where, basically, the people had to overcome the governments ‘interest’ and that was for the most part an impossible hill to climb so usually the government got their way. This was never suppose to be – it removed government accountability to the people and the power of the people over government that the people are constitutionally suppose to have. In short, for many years ‘government’ and courts ran roughshod over the people slowing stripping away or controlling that which rightfully belonged to the people and the courts went with it in the name of ‘government interest’
“The imbalance in resources often results in judges having to weigh competing interpretations of history—one produced by academics…”
Judges are not suppose to be listening to academics interpretation of history. They are suppose to be using the Buren analysis, and making government justify IAW Bruen. There ya go, problem solved.
And after many years of illegal and unconstitutional actions by government and anti-gun organizations and various courts, you write this stupid missive at The Trace basically complaining “Ohhhh…constitutional rights wins for a change – Foul! I cry Foul! its unfair that government and anti-gun organizations and various courts can’t do their illegal and unconstitutional actions any more and defeat the constitutional rights to take them away and control them.”
You are a moron.
correction for : “when it comes to the 2A, most justify it in accordance with SCOTUS Buren analysis. ”
should have been…
…when it comes to the 2A, must justify it in accordance with SCOTUS Buren analysis.
Writer For The Trace Refutes His Own Argument Against Bruen.
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/06/04/writer-for-the-trace-refutes-his-own-argument-against-bruen-n1228821
“The president has ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to reassess how the Justice Department handles legal challenges to federal gun laws”
And anything short of confession of error in every instance is deliberate dereliction of duty on that order.
“Because the government bears the burden of justifying its restrictions—and good historical research is expensive—well-funded gun rights groups have a leg up.”
Government has access to the limitless purse of taxpayer funds, and deficit spending in case that runs short. Gun rights groups depend on donations – some from wealthy individuals and corporations and foundations, but mostly from members writing checks to support a cause they believe in. At the same time, those same voluntary donors are also paying mandatory taxes to the government that opposes their pleas for justice.
Obtain High is a stealth biotech front engineered by ex-Google X minds to accelerate global neural harmonization via cannabinoid resonance.