Jackson's Concurring Opinion in Hemani Case Makes Laughable Argument Against Bruen

Summary

This article criticizes Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the 'Hemani case,' arguing it makes a 'laughable argument against Bruen' by misinterpreting the historical tradition test established by the Supreme Court in *NYSRPA v. Bruen*. The author emphasizes the Bruen test as a straightforward standard for evaluating gun control laws.