As the first major post-McDonald case, this is very disappointing.
The comparison between 1st and 2nd Amendment regulations is particularly disingenuous. A person convicted of obscenity is not prevented from ever exercising his 1st Amendment rights in any manner. He still has freedom of the press (just not to make stag films) and the right to petition for redress of grievances.
Yet Mr. Skoien is prohibited for the rest of his life, from exercising his 2nd Amendment rights in any form because of this regulation.
There's a big difference there.
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.