Prior to Bruen, however, the Seventh Circuit determined in United States v. Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 2015), that “[w]hile some of Heller’s language does link Second Amendment rights with the notions of ‘law-abiding citizens’ and ‘members of the political community,’ those passages did not reflect an attempt to define the term ‘people.’” (Internal citations omitted).
The government begins by arguing that the historical record shows an established tradition of broad legislative authority to categorically disqualify individuals from possessing firearms based on its judgment that certain groups could not be trusted to adhere to the rule of law.
During the Revolutionary War, several states (including Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and New Jersey), as well as the Continental Congress, prohibited firearm possession by individuals who refused to declare a loyalty oath to the emerging government.
Thus, in Range, Judge Krause acknowledged in dissent that certain severe offenses were not punishable by death or life imprisonment and, while “the offender was stripped of his then-existing estate, including any firearms,” he could “presumably repurchase arms” “upon successfully serving [ ] his sentence and reintegrating into society.” Id. at 127‒28.
June 28, 2023), the “historical community’s guidance and expertise” is likely to aid courts in their analyses under Bruen, although the holding in Bullock (that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, who completed his sentence for aggravated assault and manslaughter over 15 years prior) is limited to the facts of that case.