Originally Posted by hoffmang
Two seperate issues. If you are actually violent in a "domestic violence" situation, I think you're likely to lose your gun rights. However, up and until you've been ruled actually violent, your gun rights are real. If you weren't actually violent - but were otherwise confrontational and even minorly assaultive - you may be able to keep your gun rights.
Isn't this essentially a question of level of scrutiny? Perhaps I don't know enough to guess, but it seems that the issue is whether the state can show that your conviction constitutes the kind of evidence of state interest sufficient for interfering with the right, and also the appropriate level of review. I'm guessing the level of review would be less than whatever it is for a law-abiding citizen, but anything above rational basis would eliminate the worst of these disarmament laws.
I'm basing that on a half-remembered case I saw on Volokh where a judge said that disarmament without review or appeal for someone merely charged with a crime unrelated to violence (possession of kiddie porn, I think) wasn't sufficient. It sounded like the judge was saying that under any reasonable post-Heller level of review, the law was too arbitrary and too unconnnected to the crime to pass.
This game of reverse-engineering the law without sufficient knowledge is kinda fun.
What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)
Originally Posted by bulgron
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can. :43: