Before Bruen, courts generally evaluated firearm restrictions by considering both the burden on individual rights and the government’s reasons for adopting the law. That approach allowed courts to protect gun possession for lawful self-defense while accounting for the actual dangers posed by particular weapons.
GAGV’s brief explains that assault-weapons laws demonstrate why that framework is superior.
The burden imposed by assault weapons restrictions is limited. The laws do not prevent law-abiding people from defending themselves or their homes. Handguns—the firearms most commonly selected for personal protection—remain available for law-abiding people, as do many models of shotguns and rifles.
— Jonathan Lowy in The Fact that Mexican Cartels Buy AR-15s Doesn’t Mean They Should Be Constitutionally Protected.