Can a court avoid addressing under Bruen an as-applied challenge to Section 922(g)(1)'s lifetime ban and corresponding punishment by looking, instead, at whether the individual is under some form of interim supervision?

Following this Court’s holding in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022) , courts must engage in a history -based analysis when deciding whether a firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer boundaries of the right to keep and bear arms. To make this determination, a court must determine whether the challenger or conduct at issue is protected by the Second Amendment and, if so, whether the Government has presented sufficient historical analogues to justify the restriction . Here, the Third Circuit circumvented the Bruen framework in addressing Petitioner’s as -applied challenge to the lifetime firearm regulation/ban, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), by focusing on his unrelated and temporary parole supervision status. Can a court avoid addressing under Bruen an as -applied challenge to Section 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban and corresponding punishment by looking, instead, at whether the individual is under some form of interim supervision ?