I had completely missed this significant case coming from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.  It had to do with Mr. John Holden who, upon completion of his Form 4473 as it turns out, was under indictment at the time.  Being under indictment is not the same thing as being found guilty of a crime.  Furthermore, recall that the Fifth Circuit has dealt with a situation somewhat similar to this one.

Anyway, the judge makes this startling statement in the conclusion of the decision.

This opinion was drafted with an earnest hope that its author has misunderstood New York State Rifle v . Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111. If not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might well be unconstitutional . For one constitutional reason or another, a similar fate has befallen several other laws that Congress adopted with beneficent purposes . But unlike those instances , the decimation of the nation’s gun laws would arise from an assumption that our leaders and ratifying legislators in the late 1700s didn’t foresee that their descendants might need a different relationship than the founders had between the federal government and the right to bear arms. Yet a glance at the Constitution they were amending shows that they could foresee the growth in population that would change the number of representatives to be elected ,that future members of Congress might need higher pay, and that future states might aspire to join the union.

The United States Constitution, as amended and as imperfect as itwas ,is the legacy ofthose eighteenth-century Americans ; it insults both that legacy and their memory to assume they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulatingguns in new ways.

The role ofa United States District Court is to apply the law as understood by the United States Supreme Court; today’s rulingrecognizes that role. But the author of this opinion retains hope that he hasn’t accurately grasped the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment.

The court GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to withdraw guilty plea and GRANTS Mr. Holden’s motion to dismiss the indictment . Mr. Holden’s plea of guilty is WITHDRAWN and the indictment DISMISSED.

The Firth Circuit was unapologetic in their decision, whereas Judge Miller seems to be begging and pleading for his interpretation of Bruen to be shown incorrect.

I think his interpretation is correct, as much as he hates it.  On a positive note, it’s nice that he was honest in his stated loathing of the Bruen decision, while still coming to a constitutional decision.