Originally Posted by hoffmang
1. Hunting is one of the lawful purposes for which one has a right to keep and bear. Scalia said as much in Heller.
2. I think we see intermediate scrutiny here for two reasons. First, the reason that the misdemeanant wishes to keep arms is for hunting and not the core right of self defense. Second, he's in a violent category. He's not a felon, so it's not a presumptively lawful rule but it may hold up to intermediate scrutiny. However, this may mean that your crime of domestic violence has to be something more than pushing and shoving...
This is all good news.
You nailed it right there, Gene. The Feds are required to provide a substantive nexus between the conduct that constituted the domestic violence conviction, and the deprivation of the individuals fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
This will ensure that the Feds (putative
) important governmental interest (prevention of gun violence in domestic relations) is substantially related to the means by which it achieves the prevention of gun violence in domestic relations (depriving the person convicted under the statute from his fundamental 2nd amendment rights).
So, unless the statutorily prohibited conduct the individual was convicted of involved the use, or expressed or implied threat to use a firearm to consummate the conduct, no can do.
Of course, the Feds actually have no enumerated/implied/necessary and proper constitutionally established "Police Power" to even be regulating in this area in the first place, but that is a constitutional challenge that I personally hope comes sometime in the near future.