And within is how this case might apply to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case’s decision.
From what I’ve seen of his judicial writings, Gorsuch is a big fan of ‘personal liberty’ overriding .gov powers. This can cut both ways as he was on the majority side of the court’s Obergefell v Hodges approval of same sex marriage, but if he’s just as much for pro RKBA as he was for that, we may get a very good decision.

---

Wooden, ACCA, and Supreme Court Gun Crime Jurisprudence

On Monday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Wooden v. United States, ruling unanimously in favor of the criminal defendant. At issue in the case is the different-occasions provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which imposes a mandatory minimum 15-years in prison when a person convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm has three or more prior convictions for violent felonies, like burglary, that are “committed on occasions different from one another.”……………

Notably, Justice Gorsuch concurred only in the Court’s judgment and, in a part of the opinion not joined by Justice Sotomayor, castigated the majority for creating what he deemed an unworkable multi-factor test. In words that might be a harbinger of things to come in Bruen, he wrote: “Multi-factor balancing tests of this sort, too, have supplied notoriously little guidance in many other contexts, and there is little reason to think one might fare any better here.” As we’ve discussed at length, one of the key points to watch in Bruen is what the Court does with the methodological framework the federal courts of appeals have been unanimously using to assess Second Amendment challenges, but which some justices have considered an improper balancing test……………..