View Single Post
Old November 20, 2013, 01:41 PM   #110
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Scalia's "presumptively lawful" and "longstanding" language continues to haunt us, and the 9th Circuit has decided that someone convicted of domestic violence is not a "law-abiding, responsible" citizen.

Quote:
Heller tells us that the core of the Second Amendment is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” 554 U.S. at 635. Section 922(g)(9) does not implicate this core Second Amendment right because it regulates firearm possession for individuals with criminal convictions. “ Although [Chovan] asserts his right to possess a firearm in his home for the purpose of self-defense, we believe his claim is not within the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense—by virtue of [Chovan]’s criminal history as a domestic violence misdemeanant.” [p. 22]
That said, Chovan does not appear to be a very good plaintiff for us.

We really need to hear something from the Supreme Court regarding a standard of scrutiny, since intermediate scrutiny can be used to justify nearly anything.

Quote:
Putting these four conclusions together, the government has demonstrated that domestic violence misdemeanants are likely to commit acts of domestic violence again and that, if they do so with a gun, the risk of death to the victim is significantly increased. We hold that the government has thereby met its burden to show that § 922(g)(9)’s prohibition on gun possession by domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to the important government interest of preventing domestic gun violence. [p. 27]
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02291 seconds with 8 queries