Florida’s first post-Bruen Second Adamendment case confirms that a felon cannot possess a firearm.

Quoting Heller: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons…”

That line from Heller was repeated in McDonald v. Chicago and, while Bruen doesn’t re-affirm that specific line, it references “law-abiding, responsible citizens” at least twice.

Even applying the 2-step analysis under Bruen, the prohibition is still facially constitutional (relying on a spate of federal court opinions, including a few from Florida). There is at least some historical precedent of “disarming [ ] non-law abiding or non-virtuous citizens…”

The concurring opin wrote only to point out that Heller, McDonald, and Bruen are clear and “we should affirm and need not say more.”

But that would deny us a 4-page overview of Second Amendment law!

Edenfield v. Florida is here: https://bit.ly/3oMvAqk