"Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."
Lots here elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. "Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they "confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
Although the federal law at issue here is not identical to those laws, Roberts concedes, they do "not need to be."
Roberts rejects Rahimi's argument that Heller established a blanket right to have a handgun in your home, which this law would violate.
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose'
They will always come back with that to continue limiting gun rights.