Well... they did find limited standing in a select instance for one case... using previous prohibitions on firearm possession by slaves and american indians, for a time. It's not above the woke agenda (that supposedly fights against racial inequality and discrimination) to try and use discriminatory prohibitions imposed against minority groups... I guess.I think what we are seeing in this example and the recent TX examples possibly is that the gov. has gotten used to "pre-Bruen" thinking and using "modern examples" as their evidence. They seem to be slapping some type of "historical precedence" wording onto their defense language but have included zero "non-modern" historical evidence. And the judges are seeing right through that.
Imo after the Gov gets slapped down like this they will scour every historical record (I'm sure they are doing it now as we speak) to find some examples from the 1791ish period that they can use as evidence (likely the same ones the judge discovered in the Gomez ruling in TX).
So right now the Gov has no leg to stand on. It may be that even after they scour the historical record they still will have no leg to stand on. I think that will be true especially for things like mag bans where there is no similar historical record at all.
In short, life is good, and getting better!