Originally Posted by 7x57
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 about 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.
I believe that you are right.
Does prohibiting a person convicted of domestic violence reduce domestic violence or only domestic violence with a gun?
And perhaps is it reduced enough by the prohibition to warrant the prohibition as more than likely to prevent or reduce crime than not.
So, if a 100% prohibition of a firearm to persons convicted of domestic violence means a reduction in only 5% of domestic violence with a gun then I think it could be easily argued that the prohibition does not adequately meet the interests of the State vs the individuals right to keep and bear.