U.S. v. Hemani - SCOTUS rules 9-0 that smoking marijuana by itself is not sufficient justification to take away someone's 2A rights.
Wolford v. Lopez - SCOTUS rules 6-3 that Hawaii's attempt to restrict lawful CCW with their "vampire rule" (not being able to legally carry into any establishment that doesn't explicitly invite you in) is unconstitutional.
In between those two, Trump's DOJ threatened to drop what will probably be known as U.S. v. California aimed at stopping CA's "Glock ban" set to take effect July 1, as well as eliminating CA's "Safe Handgun Roster", if CA doesn't immediately drop both by June 30.
The YouTuber legal watch channels have been covering all of this. I've been tracking on Four Boxes Diner, Washington Gun Law, and Copper Jacket TV, but there are doubtless others if you want to look them up.
And yeah, I'm disappointed A.F. that SCOTUS didn't close this term by ruling on any of the state rifle and mag bans that are stacking up on their doorstep - HOWEVER - the language in the majority ruling for Wolford is setting clear precedent (in referencing Bruen, McDonald, & Heller) that a state can't play willy-nilly with the Bill of Rights based on local preference. Four Boxes Diner even did a supplemental video gleefully outlining how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion probably HELPS us by reinforcing that very thing. When that language gets applied to those platform bans - and maybe even the NFA - there's really not going to be any way they can continue to stand.
So, while I find it frustrating that the biggest legislative pains in our ass are being addressed at the speed of government, the above precedents may indicate that SCOTUS may be winding up to swing a pretty big wrecking ball against them next term.
My prediction after Bruen was that California, Hawaii, New York, etc..., doubling down on their anit-gun stupidity would ultimately be a good thing in that it would force these kinds of rulings. Am I Nostradamus?
Please discuss.