The Supreme Court's Bruen test is too rigid and fails to account for modern realities. By requiring a historical analogue from the 18th or 19th centuries, it ignores how technology has changed firearms. AR-15s are far more lethal than the muskets of the founding era, yet the test makes it nearly impossible to regulate them based on today's needs.
This test creates legal uncertainty. Lower courts have reached conflicting conclusions about whether historical analogues exist for assault weapon bans. The result is a patchwork of rulings that leaves public safety in limbo. States that want to protect their communities face expensive legal battles with no guarantee of success.
Public safety suffers. AR-15s have been used in many of the deadliest mass shootings in recent years. The Bruen test prioritizes a narrow reading of history over the lives of Americans. It prevents lawmakers from responding to evolving threats, such as the use of high-capacity magazines and rapid-fire rifles.
Furthermore, the test is ahistorical itself. The founders could not have imagined today's weapons, and the historical tradition they established was often about regulating arms in ways that promoted public safety. The Supreme Court has tied the hands of states, making it harder to pass common-sense laws that most Americans support.