Vincent v. Garland (10th Cir. 2023)

I only noticed it because I was cited in it.  The majority upheld the felon-in-possession firearms disability but Judge Bacharach's concurrence was not so sure:

"The answer is debatable. Bruen had no occasion to address the scope of the people as used in the Second Amendment. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2157, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022) (Alito, J., concurring) ("Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm...."). But Bruen referred fourteen times to the Second Amendment's protection of law-abiding citizens. Id. at 2122, 2125, 2131, 2133-34, 2135 n.8, 2138 & n.9, 2150, 2156. These references proved critical to the Court's historical analysis. For example, the Court searched the historical record and found no historical analogues requiring a special need for "law-abiding citizens" to possess guns. Id. at 2150, 2156 (2022)."