>places of worship

This one stood out since, though shootings have taken place at churches, the Texas gunman who got one shot off before a fellow church goer shot him stuck out in my mind.

These laws are always nothing more than virtue signaling if the establishment doesn't already include searches to enter. All you've done is increase the chances that the gunman is the only one with a gun.

Honestly I don't even know the mental gymnastics you have to go through to think it does anything at all. What's the argument exactly? We already outlawed shooting people.

> à new test to assess the constitutionality of gun laws by holding they must be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

This is the piece I find disconcerting. It effectively bans any legislation short of a constitutional amendment, as roughly tautologically any law that changes firearm regulation is not in keeping with existing regulations.

I wonder if this could be used later to find expansions of gun rights unconstitutional because they're not in keeping with existing regulations?

Seems like a particularly grim manifestation of the worst-case scenario in federalism. It would be quite easy for either side to claim that "people died because *the other side* did/didn't pass this law!".

It’s time to declare the Republic !