Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
There is a much better discussion of it here:
http://volokh.com/2010/12/30/big-se...possession-by-domestic-violence-misdemeanants
But the short version is that in the case of United States vs. Chester, the government tried to justify a 922(g)(9) conviction (ban on firearms possession by person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence) by saying it was no different than the list of presumptively lawful regulations mentioned in Heller.
The 4th Circuit said that the government failed to meet it's scrutiny burden with that argument and remanded. It looks like they are applying at least an intermediate scrutiny.
http://volokh.com/2010/12/30/big-se...possession-by-domestic-violence-misdemeanants
But the short version is that in the case of United States vs. Chester, the government tried to justify a 922(g)(9) conviction (ban on firearms possession by person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence) by saying it was no different than the list of presumptively lawful regulations mentioned in Heller.
The 4th Circuit said that the government failed to meet it's scrutiny burden with that argument and remanded. It looks like they are applying at least an intermediate scrutiny.