This case gives a lot more thought to the issue than any of the other appellate opinions I have read. By implication, if you have a gun in your house for self defense strict scrutiny applies.
IIRC, this was a very similar issue to what was presented in Emerson (that 5th circuit case that started this whole thing). He had a pistol, presumably for self defense, but was probhibited from having a gun because he had a protective order against him. So the reasoning in this case is an improvement. Except maybe if you are a hunter.
I wonder how those two "conservative" judges, Easterbrook and Posner, would have handled the case. I bet they would have affirmed. Maybe the DOJ will seek a rehearing with the full 7th circuit. We were fortunate in the slection of the panel; all three are Republican apppointees.
The only thing of value which we have at present is our arms and our courage. So long as we keep our arms we fancy that we can make good use of our courage; but if we surrender our arms we shall lose our lives as well.