Not a shocker, but the Eleventh Circuit confirmed yesterday that not all Second Amendment gun rights arguments are going to be winners, even in the post-Bruen era. In the case, US v. Dubois, the defendant was convicted on a 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession charge. He argued that 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional, citing Bruen, among other recent Supreme Court decisions. But Chief Judge Pryor, writing for the court, pointed out that the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment opinions haven't abrogated the Eleventh Circuit's prior precedent upholding the constitutionality of 922(g)(1)
More interesting, though, were the concurring opinions, written by CJ Pryor and Judge Abudu.
Pryor opined that 922(g)(1) would survive even were the Eleventh Circuit to consider its constitutionality anew, exploring how the principles of disarming certain groups at the Founding—combined with severe punishments for felonies—support the law’s constitutionality today. For example, in the centuries leading up to the Founding, English law disarmed brigands, highwaymen, and, wait for it, Catholics.
Meanwhile, Judge Abudu articulated concern with focusing on history and tradition when examining a law's constitutionality, noting that such history and tradition included laws passed when women and people of color "were denied a seat at the legislative table[.]"
Full opinion here.