New case in the fourth circuit. Covered by Dave Hardy here, and Clayton Cramer as well. There have been a few courts that have taken this issue seriously. What interesting about this ruling is that it would seem to have been decided under intermediate scrutiny:
We cannot conclude on this record that the government has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the important object of reducing domestic gun violence and § 922(g)(9)’s permanent disarmament of all domestic violence misdemeanants. The government has offered numerous plausible reasons why the disarmament of domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to an important government goal; however, it has not attempted to offer sufficient evidence to establish a substantial relationship between § 922(g)(9) and an important governmental goal. Having established the appropriate standard of review, we think it best to remand this case to afford the government an opportunity to shoulder its burden and Chester an opportunity to respond.
Not a clear cut victory just yet, but it’s about as close as we can ask. The shame is this defendant seems a good bit less than ideal.