Jackson/Sotomayor again object to the Bruen test itself, observing that what the Court does looks a lot like means-end scrutiny… I suspect we’ll see more debate about the validity and mechanics of Bruen in the yet-to-be-decided Wolford case, as agreement on the outcome muted some of that here
Alito/Kagan are focused on marijuana, saying it's an easy case bc many Americans use marijuana occasionally with implicit permission from the fed gov’t – certainly true, but difficult to see how Bruen sanctions this evolution (was a marijuana & guns ban const'l in 1968 and later became unconst'l?)
There’s language suggesting case-by-case dangerousness determinations might be needed across 922g – some courts have started to develop a test for determining if underlying felony convictions indicate dangerousness & I read Hemani as a sign that’s where SCOTUS majority may be headed in future cases
Also it's a rarely charged provision, especially compared to the fed felon gun ban, and the Court says it isn't opining on that law or any other status-based gun bans. Many states have similar laws, but the historical test might be more permissive of state regulation given post-Founding developments