Here is the link (pdf warning): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422599/20260831171431853_25-238%2025-566%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

I feel massively vindicated by seeing this brief, because it reiterates a point I've been actively reading and posting about since Bruen established a "historical inquiry" test.

'Dangerous and unusual' doesn't refer to a category of arm, but rather a category of conduct. The brief cites historical examples, some of which I have quoted myself, which exemplify this point.

I highly recommend you read this brief, and also push back on those who are on the pro-2a side who still say that it's understandable to ban dangerous and unusual firearms.

Take your pick: All people, all gun owners, all gun-owning homes, or all guns.

Whichever basis you choose, it hints at hundreds of millions of potential opportunities for gun-related harm. (Gun control nods “yes” here.)

But the essential difference is after that point, when more than 99% of those opportunities don’t result in any gun-related harm, because the vast majority of those populations don’t participate in any criminal, homicidal, or suicidal “lotteries”. (Overall odds are not relevant if participation is zero or nearly zero.)

That’s the mismatch that gun control fails to address: How massive, unrivaled potential becomes fractional, concentrated harm.

I am not an american, but I believe that continents like Europe could and should adapt rules similar to the american 2nd emendment but I with some differences. I believe that owning weapons and carrying them around should be a right for everyone but convicted felons and mentally ill people, wich are excluded from the 2nd emendment. I suggest america should regulate the buying process more, issuing psychological exams other than just background checks to be sure that no guns are bought from people who don't have the right to own them.