Let’s start with a premise: Rahimi was a faithful application of Bruen. Efforts to “clarify” Bruen are really an attempt to rewrite the precedent. I don’t think anyone seriously doubts this premise. Now the reason why the Court may “clarify” Bruen is because certain members of the Court don’t like the results that it yields: namely, that a dangerous person like Rahimi can possess a firearm. Again, the correctness of the Bruen precedent should be able to stand without regard to how it may be applied in future cases.
My name is Travis Fletcher and I'm located in sunny Central Florida. Im a gun enthusiast that has been shooting for over 20 years. Over the years I have created multiple websites about the shooting industry.
I always look forward to meeting people who enjoy shooting and hunting as much as I do.
If you would like to know any more information about me feel free to send me an email.
