The fact the only case they took is one that was already settled is all you need to know. They are not doing anything until after the election.
These gun cases all flow from Scalia’s Heller opinion. So brilliant, the opinion lays out the original intent and then brilliantly makes the argument that words have meaning. It’s not controversial to read “ not be abridged” and assume an absolute right.
But the end of Scalia’s opinion concedes some reasonable restrictions will be permissible. What did he expect? A wave of gun restrivtion cases grew.
Ok, that’s fine. Thomas couldn’t criticize Scalia so he framed it as Scalia layed out a frame work that needs further clarification.
Ok, thats right, I buy that. All the subsequent cases have a standard test. “ does this legislation substantially abridge the right or not. Period full stop.
But as these current crop is want to do, they write anything in . Thats legislating from the bench.
Had Scalia ended his “words have plain meaning and abridged means just that”. Restrictions be damned.