> Although, I guess the current SCOTUS isn't above ignoring precedent that is popular with the people.
I assume you are referring to roe v wade, which is a case of where the precedent was wrong ín the first place (Abortion was pretty much banned everywhere in common law, so there was no precedent of it being an unenumerated right, for example) and was kept as a precedent because it was a precedent (ignoring the lack of underlying constitutionality)
There was also a ruling last week explicitly overturning certain gun regulation laws. See: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen [0], which overturns a law that has stood since 1911 in New York State. Based on Gallup data [1], 52% of Americans want stricter gun laws, and only 11% want less strict gun laws. The decision makes it much harder to impose additional restrictions, and will require some states to lessen restrictions.
0: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
You’re worried about a law used by responsible gun owners. Criminals won’t apply for a CCW and will just carry anyway. How does the supreme court ruling out more guns into criminals hands to justify your concern?
Well, kinda. Usually it is the case that the underlying legal framework changed. For example, a new amendment or new federal law. In this case, no such thing has happened.
I assume you are referring to roe v wade, which is a case of where the precedent was wrong ín the first place (Abortion was pretty much banned everywhere in common law, so there was no precedent of it being an unenumerated right, for example) and was kept as a precedent because it was a precedent (ignoring the lack of underlying constitutionality)