Bruen's inconsistent yardstick fractures the Court's handling of gun laws
Ian Millhiser argues that the Supreme Court’s Wolford v. Lopez decision, which struck down Hawaii’s private-business carry rule, rests on the controversial Bruen framework and reveals a pattern of arbitrary Second Amendment rulings. He notes that four colonial-era laws similar to Hawaii’s were ignored, contrasts Wolford with Rahimi (which upheld a domestic-violence gun ban), and urges overruling Bruen to stop the court from making self-defeating, faithless decisions driven by political leanings rather than consistent legal methodology.
