No. 22-60596
34
To be clear, I fully concur in the majority’s reasoning—albeit with the
caveat that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in United States v.
Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, No. 22-915, __ S. Ct. __,
2023 WL 4278450, at *1 (June 30, 2023)—as I believe that we have applied
Bruen as well as possible in evaluating the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3). I
write separately to highlight what has become increasingly apparent—that
courts, operating in good faith, are struggling at every stage of the Bruen
inquiry. Those struggles encompass numerous, often dispositive, difficult
questions, including, but not limited to the following. First, who, and what
conduct, is covered by the Second Amendment?
8
Second, how does the
_____________________
Moreover, the effect of Bruen has been especially dramatic as to civil claims. See Jake
Charles, One Year of Bruen’s Reign: An Updated Empirical Analysis, Duke Ctr. for
Firearms Law (July 7, 2023), https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/07/one-year-of-
bruens-reign-an-updated-empirical-analysis.
8
For instance, courts are divided as to whether the Supreme Court’s description
of the right as one belonging to “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at
2131 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 635), is meant to exclude certain categories of citizens,
such as those convicted of a crime, from the protection of the Second Amendment. See
United States v. Jackson, No. 22-cr-141, 2023 WL 2499856, at *7 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2023)
(collecting cases in which courts “rejected post-Bruen challenges to status-based gun laws
on the ground that the restricted people are not law-abiding, responsible citizens to whom
the Second Amendment applies”). Compare also United States v. Charles, 633 F. Supp. 3d
874, 887-88 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (concluding that there is a historical basis for excluding
felons under the Second Amendment), and United States v. Hughes, No. 22-cr-640, 2023
WL 4205226, at *5-8 (D.S.C. June 27, 2023) (discussing how several courts have concluded
that “convicted felons have traditionally been excluded from the political community” and
are therefore not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment), with Range,
69 F.4th at 103 (“ [W]e reject the Government’s contention that only ‘law-abiding,
responsible citizens’ are counted among ‘the people’ protected by the Second
Amendment.”). In other cases, the debate as to what constitutes a “bearable arm” covered
by the Second Amendment has revitalized relevance. See , e.g., Oral Argument at 1:10-2:10,
Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 23-1353, (7th Cir. June 29, 2023) (state and local defendants
arguing that large-capacity magazines are not “arms” but “accessories that are not
necessary to the operation of any firearm”); see also Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode
Island, No. 22-cv-246, 2022 WL 17721175, at *11-13 (D.R.I. Dec. 14, 2022) (finding at the
preliminary-injunction stage that plaintiffs had not shown that large-capacity magazines are
Case: 22-60596 Document: 00516852540 Page: 34 Date Filed: 08/09/2023