This is a fraught topic, touching on both gun "rights" and "originalism" in judicial philosophy, but here goes: Barrett and Gorsuch Have to Choose Between Originalism and Expanding Gun Rights (Slate). The premise of the piece is that the Heller decision, which animated "gun rights" (creating a "right" that didn't previously exist), has been undercut by a decade of research that demonstrates its historical basis was just plain wrong.
Justices Gorsuch and Barrett have staked their reputations on their commitment to apply originalist methods in a neutral manner and let the evidence dictate the outcome. Will they follow through on that promise in Corlett? Research and scholarship published in the decade after Heller will force them to put their earlier promises to the test. It now seems clear that if they apply originalism in a neutral fashion they will have to choose between Heller’s methodology and Heller’s conclusions.

To expand slightly, the article is inspired by the Supreme Court's acceptance of a case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, challenging New York's restrictive "concealed carry" law, which requires a justification for the permit to be granted. The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Ready to Create a Constitutional Right to Concealed Carry (Slate). I'll have more to say, but I want to get this out there.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich