## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3770 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S T EV EN S KOIEN, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08 -cr-12 -bb c

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AY 20, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 13, 2010

Befo re E A S TERB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUER, P OSNER, F LA UM , K ANN E , R OV NER, W OO D , W I L L I A MS, S YKES, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . St ev enS k o i enha s two c o nvi cti ons f or“m i sdem ea n orcr i m e[ s] o fdom est i c vi ol ence” and ther ef or e i s forbi dd en to car ryfi re ar m s in or affecting i nter sta te com m erce. 18 U
. S. C. §922 ( g) ( 9)
. W i sconsin i nfo rm ed Sk oi en abo ut t h is r ule ; he s i gned an ac k no wl edg m en t o fthe fi r earms di sabi l i ty
. W hi l e he2 N o. 08

- 3770

w as on probati on fro m the seco nd o fhi s dom est i cvio len c e co nvi cti ons, he was f ound in posse ssi on o fthr ee fi re ar m s: a p ist ol, a ri fl e, and a s hotgun. H e pl eaded g ui l tyt o v i o l at i ng§ 92 2( g ) ( 9) b y po ss es singthe s ho tgun an d w as se n t e n c e d to tw o ye ar s’ im p ris on m en t. H is con d iti ona l gu ilt y p lea, see Fed
. R. Crim
. P. 11(a)(2) , re ser ves the ri ght to conte nd that §922 ( g) (9) v iol ate s th e C on st itu tio n ’s S ec on d A m en d m e n t . W e h ea rd th is appeal e n b ancto d ec i de w hether§9 22( g) ( 9) co m port s w ith th at am en d m en t, as int er p re te d in Di s t r i ctof C o lum bia v. Heller, 12 8 S
. Ct. 27 83 ( 2008 ) . Th e e l eve nth ci rcui t has hel d that i t doe s. U nite d State s v. White, 59 3 F.3 d 11 99 , 120 5– 06 (11 th C ir. 20 10 ). Th e fo u rt h circ u it has i m pli ed otherwis e, tho u gh i n a no n-pr ecedenti al ord er. U nited S t a tes v. C hester, 201 0 U .S. A p p . L EXIS37 39 (4th C ir. Feb. 23, 2010). Hellerco ncl ud es that the S eco nd A m endm ent “ prot ects th e r i g ht to k ee p an d be ar ar m s f o r th e pur po se o f selfdefe nse” and that a l aw “that ba n ned the pos ses si on o f ha n d guns i n the hom e” vi ol ate s that r i ght. M cDonal d v
. Chic ago , No. 0 8– 15 21 ( U. S
. J une 28, 2 01 0) , s l i p o p. 1
. The Uni te d S ta te s su bmi ts tha t, b efo r e co ns i der i ng h ow the am en d m en t a p p lies to s h o t g u n s a n d h u n tin g (w h ich is how S koi en co ntends he use d th at w eapon) , we m ust deci d e w h etherCongr ess i s e nti tl ed to adopt ca teg or i cal disqual i fi cati ons such as §922 ( g) ( 9)
. T h e prose cutor r e l i e s o n th i s p a s s a g e fr o m Heller : Li k e m o stri g ht s, the r i g hts ec ur ed bythe S ec o nd Ame n d me n ti s n o tunl i mi t e d
. . . . Al th o u g h we do not und er tak e a n exhausti ve hi sto ri calN o. 08

- 3770 3

an alysis to dayo fthe ful l s co pe o fthe S ec o nd A m endm ent, nothi ng i n our opi ni on s houl d be ta k ent o c as t do ubto n l o ng st an di ngprohibi ti o ns o n th e p o s s e s s i o n o f fi r e a r ms b y fe l o n s a n d t he m ental l y i l l, o r l aw s forbi dd i ng the car ry i ng o f fi r ea r m s i n s en si ti ve pl ac es s ucha s sc ho o l s an d go ve rn m en t b u ild in gs , or law s i m p os in g c on d itio n s a n d qu alific at ion s o n th e c om m er c ial sa le ofar m s. 26

_________________ W e identi fy these presum pti vel y l aw ful re gul a- 26 tor y m ea su re s o nl y a s e xam ple s; o ur l i st does not pu rpor t t o be e xhausti ve. 128 S. Ct. at 2816 –17, re i ter ate d by M cD ona ld, sl i p op. 39 –40 ( plur al i ty opi ni on)
. To thi s S koi en r epl i es that hi s pri or o ffen se s wer e m i sde m ea no r s r ather th anfel o ni es , a nd th at§ 92 2( g ) ( 9) i s no t a “l o ng st an di ng ” pr o hibi ti o n, ha ving been enacte d i n 199 6. S ee U n i ted S ta tes v. Ha yes , 12 9 S
. Ct. 1079 (20 09) ( disc ussi ng i ts genes i s)
. The pro secuto r rej oi ns bynot i ng tha t the Court sta ted i ts hol ding thi s way: [ W ] e ho l d tha t th e Di st r i ct ’ s ba n o n h an dgu n po ss es si o n in the ho m e v io l at es the S ec o nd Am en dm en t, a s do es i ts pr o hibi ti o n a g ains t r en d e rin g a n y la w fu l firea rm in t h e h om e o p er ab le f orthe pu rpos e o fi m m edi ate se l f

- defense. A ssu m i ngtha t H el l eri s no t di squa li fi ed f r o m the exer ci se of Se cond A m endm ent ri ghts, the Di str i ct m us t per m i t hi m t o r eg i st erhi s ha ndg un a nd m ust i ssue hi m a l i cense to car ryi t in the hom e.4 N o. 08

- 3770 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. at28 2 1

– 2 2
. The r e fe r e nc e t o b e i ng“ di s qu a l i fi e d” re l ate s t o pri orco nvi cti ons and m entali l l ness. Id
. at 2819
. Hellera l so o bs er ves th at th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t “el evat es abov e al l o theri nter est s the r i ght o fl aw - abi ding, r es po ns ibl e ci ti ze ns t o us e ar m s i n de fen se o fhe arth a nd h o me . ” Id . a t 2821. Peo ple co nvi cted o fdom est i c vi ol ence ar e nei therl aw - abi ding norr esponsibl e, th e pr ose cutor conte nd s. W e do n o tthinki tp r o fi t a b l e t o p a r s e the s e p a s s a ges ofHelleras i ftheyco ntai ned an answer t o the quest i on whethe r § 92 2( g ) ( 9) i s va l i d. The y a r e p re ca ut i o na r y l an g ua g e. I ns te ad o fr es o l vingque st i o ns s ucha s th e o ne we mustc o nfr o nt, the J us ti ce s ha ve t o l d us tha t th e m att ers hav e be en l eft o pen. The l anguage we have q uoted warns r eader s no t t o tr eatHellera s co nt aini ng bro ader hol dings th an the Court seto ut to es tabl i sh: that th e S econd A m en dm en t cr ea te s i ndi vi dualr i ght s, o ne of w hich i s keep ing op erabl e h a n d g un s at hom e for selfdefen se . W ha t o th er en ti tl ement s th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t cr ea te s, a nd wha t r egul at i o ns l eg i sl atur es may es tabl i sh, w er e l eft o pen. The o pini on i s no t a co m prehensi ve co de; i t i s j us t ane xpl an ati o n f o r the Co ur t’ s di spo si ti o n. J udi ci alo pi ni o ns m us t no t be c o nfus ed wi ths ta tu te s, a nd gener alexpre ssi ons m ust be r ead i n l igh t ofthe subj ect u n d erco nsi derat i on. S ee Z enith R a dio C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes , 437 U
. S. 443, 462 (1978 ). A l thou g h the p a s s a g e s we h a v e quo t e d a r e n ot di spositiv e, the y a r e i nf o r m at i ve . The y t el l us tha t st atut o r y p r o h ib i t i o n s o n th e po s s e s s i o n o fw e a p o n s b y s o me perso ns ar e pr oper

— an d , i m p ort a nt ly for cu rrent p ur-N o. 08

- 3770 5 po s e s , tha t the l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e di d no t e nd i n 1 7 9 1
. That s o mecat ego ric all i m i ts ar e pr operi s par t o fthe or i gi nal m eani ng, l eavin g to the peo ple ’ s e l ecte d repr ese ntati ves the fi l l i ng i n ofdetai l s. Helleri denti fi ed , 1 28 S. Ct. at 28 04, as a “h i g hl y i nfl ue nt i al ” “pr ec ur so r ” to th e Seco nd Am en dm en t the Addre ss a nd Re as o ns o fDi ss en t o fthe M in or ity of th e C on ve n tio n of th e Sta t e o fP en n sy lva n ia to Th eir C ons tituen ts. (Th is r ep ort i s rep rinted in B erna rd S c h w a r t z, 2 The B ill of R igh ts: A D o cu m enta ry H isto ry 662, 66 5 ( 1971 )
. ) The r epor t a sse rt ed that ci ti zens have a p e r s o n a l r i g h tt o b e a r a r ms “ u n l e s s f o r c r i me s c o mm i tt ed, o r r ea l dang ero fpub l i c i nj ur y ”. M an y o fthe sta tes , wh ose o w n const i tuti ons enti tl ed th ei r ci ti zens to be a rm ed, di d not e xtend thi s r i ght t o p er sons convi cted ofcr i m e. S ee St ephen P. H albr ook, TheFo und e rs ’Se co nd Ame n d men t27 3 ( 2008 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t thi s l i m i tat i on w as und er sto od i n the ei ghtee nth centur y eve n w h en not st at ed ex p re ss l y in th e c on st itu tio n al t ex t); C . K ev in M ar sh all, W

hy C a n’ tM ar t ha S t e wartHavea Gun? , 32 H ar v. J
. L. & Pub
. Po l icy 69 5, 7 00 –1 3 ( 20 09 ) ( su r ve y i ngthe hi sto ryo fst ate l aw s l i m i ti ng co nvict s’ enti tl em ent t o posse ss fi re ar m s)
. S ee al so U ni t e d S t at e s v . M cCane, 57 3 F
. 3d 10 37, 10 47–5 0 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 9) ( Ty m k o vi ch, J
. , c o ncu rri ng ). The fir st federa l st atute di squal i fyi ng fel ons f ro m posses si ng fi re ar m s was noten ac te d unti l 19 38; i t a l so disquali fi ed m i sdem eanants w h o had been co nvi cted o f vi ol ent o ffenses . Fe deralFi re ar m s Act, c. 850, §2( f ) , 52 S tat
. 1250 , 1251. ( T ech nically the crim e w as “re c e ip t” of a gun thathad cr oss ed sta te l i n es ; the sta tute tr eat ed pos-6 N o. 08

- 3770

ses si on a s e vi dence ofr ecei p t.) A 19 38 l aw m ay be “l ongs tandi ng” fro m the perspect i ve of20 08, wh en Hellerwas deci ded , but 1938 i s 1 47 yea rs afterthe sta tes r a t i fi e d t h e S e c o n d A me n d me n t
. T h e F e d e r a l F i r e a r ms A ct c o v e r e d o nl y a fe w v i o l e nt o ffe ns e s ; the b a n on pos s e s s i o n by all fe l o ns wa s n o te na c t e d u nt i l 1 9 6 1
. P ub
. L. 87–3 42, 75 S tat
. 75 7 ( extendi ng the di squal i fi cati on t o a l l p e r s o n s c o n v i c t e d o fa n y “c r i me p u n i s h a b l e b y i mpr i so nm en t f o r a t er m e xc ee di ngo ne y ea r ”, the c ur r en t federa l defi ni ti on o fa “fel ony” )
. I n 196 8 Congr ess change d th e “ re c eip t” ele m en t o ft h e 1 93 8 la w to “p os se ss ion ,” g i ving1 8 U. S
. C. § 92 2( g) ( 1) i ts c ur r en t f o r m . I fs ucha r ec en t ex te ns i o n o f th e di squa l i fi ca ti o n to n o n- vi o l en t fel ons ( em bezz l er s a nd ta x eva ders, fo r exam ple ) i s pre sum pti vel y c onst i tuti onal, as Hellersa id in n ot e 2 6, it i s di ffi cul t t o condem n §92 2( g) ( 9) , wh i ch l i ke the 1938 A ct i s l i m i ted to vi ol ent c ri m es. I t would b e w eird to sa y th at §9 22 (g)(9 ) is un c on st itu tio n al in 20 10 b u t w i ll beco m e co nsti tuti onalby20 43, wh en i t wil l be as “l ongsta nd i ng” a s § 922( g) ( 1) was w hen the Court deci ded Heller
. M or eo ver, l ega l l i m i ts on the poss ess i on o f fi rearm s by th e m en tally il l also are o f 2 0 t h C en tu ry vi ntage ; §9 22( g) ( 4) , wh i c h forbi ds posse ssi on bya perso n “wh o has be en adj ud i cated as a m entaldefecti ve orwh o has be en com m i tte d to a m entali nsti tuti on”, w as not enacte d until19 68. Pub. L . 9 0–61 8, 82 S tat
. 1213 , 12 20. S o a lthoughthe J us ti ce s ha ve no t es tabl i sh ed th ata ny parti cul arst atut e is val i d, w e do tak e fro m Hellerthe m essag e tha t exc lusions n eed n o t m irr or l im its that w ereN o. 08

- 3770 7 on the bo oks i n 179 1. Thi s i s the so rto fm ess age that, w h et h er or n ot te c h n ica lly d ict u m , a cou rt of a p p ea ls m ust r espect, gi ven the S up re m e Cour t’ s e nti tl em ent t o speak thro ugh i ts opi ni ons as w el l as thr ough i ts techni calhol dings
. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Blo om , 14 9 F
. 3d 649, 653 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)
. Thi s m eans th at s om e ca teg or i cal disqual i fi cati ons ar e per m i ssibl e: Congr ess i s no t l i m i ted to case -by- c as e excl usi ons ofper sons w ho have bee n shown to be untrustwo rthy with w eapons, norneed th es e lim its be es ta b lish ed by ev id en c e p r es en te d in cour t. Hellerd id n otsu gg es t t h at d isq u alific at ion s w ou ld be effe c ti ve onl y i fthe sta tute’ s be nefi ts ar e fi rs t e stabl i shed by adm i ssibl e e vi dence. C at eg or ica l lim its on th e p os se ss ion of firea rm s w ou ld no tbe a c o ns t i t ut i o na l a no maly . T hinko fthe F i r s tAmen dm ent, wh i ch has l ong had categ or i callim its: o bsce ni ty, defam at ion, i nci tem ent t o cri m e, and others
. S ee U nited St at e s v. St e ve ns , 13 0 S
. Ct. 15 77, 15 84 ( 2010 )
. These cate
gor i es ar e not re str i cted to thos e r eco gni zed i n 179 1, wh en the s tat es approve d the Bi l l o fRi ghts. The Justi ces have he l d tha t l eg i sl atur es may add ch i l d po r nogr aph y to the l i st, e ve n tho ug h the mate r i al s do no t m ee t th e hi sto ri calde fin iti on o fo bsce ni ty. New Yo rk v . Ferber, 45 8 U
. S. 74 7 (1 982)
. M or e r ecent l y, the Court hel d that s peech a s p a r to fa p ub l i c e mpl o y e e ’ s j o b is c a t e g o r i c a l l y o ut s i de the F i r s tAmen dm ent. Gar ce t t iv. Ce b al l os , 54 7 U.S
. 41 0 ( 2 0 0 6 )
. Th e r e a r e o the r c a t e g o r i e s , whi c h we ne ed not d iscuss. S ee gener al l y J ohn H ar t El y, Fla g D esecrati o n: A C ase Study in the Roles of Categorization and B alancing in FirstAm endm entAna lysis , 88 H arv. L
. Rev
. 1482 (1975). N ei therF e r b ernorGa rc et tico nd i ti oned the cate gor i cal8 N o. 08

- 3770 l i m i t o n pr o o f, s at i sf ac to r y t o a cou rt, thatthe e xc l usi on was vi talto the pu bl i c sa fety
. W e do not m ean that a cat ego ri call i m i t o n the posse ssio n of firea rm s c an be j u st ified u n d er th e ra tio n al-b as is te st, w h ich d ee m s a law va lid if an y ju s t i fica tio n for it m ay be im ag in ed . E .g., V a nc e v . B rad ley, 440 U
. S. 93 (1979). I f a rati o na l b as i s wer e en o ug h, the S ec o nd Am en dm en t w oul d not do anythi ng, se e Heller, 12 8 S. Ct. at28 17–1 8 n. 27

—because a ra ti onalbas i s i s e sse nti alf orl egi sl ati on in ge n er al. T h e C ou rtav oid e d d ec id in g in St e ve ns how gr eatthe pu bl i c i nter estm ust be to adopt a new cate gor i cal l i m i t on s peech

— the U ni ted S tat es had argued f o r t r ea tingde pi ct i o ns o fe xt r eme a ni m alc r ue l tythe sa m e as ch i l d po r no g r aph y

—buts ta te d tha t th e sh o wi ng mu s tb e s t r o ng . Th e U n i t e d S t a t e s c o n c e d e s th a ts o me form o fs tr o ngs ho wi ng( “int er m edi at e sc r ut i ny, ” m an y op in ion s s ay ) is es se n tia l, a n d t h at §9 22 (g)(9 ) is va lid o nl y i f su bs ta nt i al l y r el at ed to an i m po r ta ntgovernm entalo b j ecti ve. S ee Buc kl ey v . Am e r i ca n Cons t i t ut i onal Law Fo und at i on, Inc . , 5 25 U
. S. 18 2, 2 02 –0 4 ( 19 99 ) ( us i ng th is form ula for som e Fir st A m e n d m en t qu estions ); Heckl e rv . M athe ws , 4 65 U. S
. 7 28 , 744 –5 1 (1984) ( us i ng thi s f o r mul a f o r s t a t ut e s tha ta ffe ct m ar ri a g e a nd c hi l dbear i ng)
. The co ncessi on i s prudent, and w e nee d not g et m o r e dee pl y i nt o the “ l ev el s o fs cr ut i ny ” qua g m i r e, f o r no one doubts that th e goalo f§9 22( g) ( 9) , pre venting ar m ed m ayhem , i s a n i m port ant g ove rnm entalo bj ecti ve. Both l ogi c a nd da t a e s t a b l i s h a s ub s t a nt i a l r e l a t i o n b e t we en §922 ( g) ( 9) and thi s obj ecti ve. “M i sdem eanorcr i m e ofdom est i c vi ol ence” i s a d e fi n e d t e r m.N o. 08

- 3770 9 ( A) Ex ce pt as pr o vi ded i n s ubpa r ag r aph( C) , the ter m “m i sdem eanor c ri m e o fdom est i c vi ol ence” m eans an o ffense that

— ( i ) i s a m i sdem eanoru nd erFe deral, S tat e, o r Tr iba l l aw; a nd ( i i ) has, as an e lem ent, the use o r att em pted us e o f ph y s i c a l f o r c e , o r the thr e a t e ne d use o f a d ea dlyweapon, co m m i tte d by a curr ent o r f o r m ers po us e, pa r en t, o r g ua r di ano fthe vic tim , by a p er s o n w ith w h om th e v ict im sh ar es a c h ild in c o m m o n , by a p er so n w h o is co habi tingwi tho r ha s co habi te d wi ththe vi cti m as a spouse, pare nt, o r guar dian, o r by a perso n si m i l ar l y s i tuate d to a s pouse, pare nt, o r g u a r d i a n o fth e v i c t i m. ( B)( i ) A per son shal l notbe consi dered to have been convi cted o fsuch a n offense f orpurposes o f thi s chapte r, unl ess

— (I) th e p er so n w as rep re se n te d by co u n se l in th e c as e, or k n ow in gly an d int ellig en tly wai ve d the r i g htt o c o uns eli n the c as e; a nd ( I I ) i n the case o fa prosecuti on f oran o ffense desc r ibe d i n thi s par ag r aphf o r whi cha perso n w as en tit led to a j ury tr i ali n the j uri sdict i on i n w hi ch the case was tr i ed, ei ther ( aa) the case was tr i ed by a j ury, o r ( bb ) the pe r so n knowi ng l y a nd i ntel li gently wai ved the ri ght t o10 N o. 08

- 3770 h ave the c ase tr i ed by a j ury, by gui l ty ple a o r othe rwis e. ( i i ) A per son shal l notbe consi dered to have been convi cted ofsuch a n offense f orpurposes o fthi s ch apt eri fthe c o nv i ct i o n h as b ee n e xpun g e d o r s e t a s i de , o r i s a n o ffe ns e f or w hi ch the perso n has b een par doned or has ha d c i vi l r i g ht s r estore d ( i fthe l aw o fthe appli cabl e j uri sdic ti on pro vi des f orthe l oss ofci vil r i ghts und ersuch a n offense) unl ess the p ardon, expungem ent, o r re sto ra ti on o f ci vi l r i ghts express l y provides that the per son m ay n ot shi p, tr anspor t, poss ess , o r re cei ve fi re ar m s. 18 U .S.C . §92 1(a )(33 ). A “m isd em ea n or cr im e o f d om es tic vi ol ence” t h u s i s o ne i n w hi ch vi ol ence ( actualo r atte m p te d ) is a n e l e m e n t o f th e o ffen se ; i t is n oten ou gh if a ri sky act hap p en s to cau se inj ur y. C f. B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 553 U
. S. 137 (2008); Jo hn son v. U ni t e d S ta tes , 13 0 S. Ct
. 1265 (2010); U nite d State s v . H o w ell , 53 1 F
. 3d 621 ( 8th Ci r. 20 08) ( applying Bega yto §921(a)(33))
. The b el i efunde r pi nni ng§ 92 2( g ) ( 9) i s th atpe o pl e who have been convi cted o fvi ol ence once

— toward a spouse, chi l d, ordom est i c par tner, no l ess

— ar e l i kel y t o use vi o l en ce a g ain. Tha t’ s th e j us ti fi ca ti o n f o r k ee pi ng fi re ar m s o ut o fthei r hand s, f orguns ar e about fi ve ti m es m or e deadl y th an knive s, gi ven that a n att ack w i th s o me k i nd o fwe a po n ha s o c c ur r e d. S e e F r a nk l i n E. Z im ring, F i r e a r ms , Vi o l e n c e, a n d t h ePo t e n t i a l Imp a c tofN o. 08

- 3770 11 Fi r e ar m s Cont r ol , 3 2 J
. L. M ed. & Ethi cs 34 ( 20 04 ) ( co l l ec ting stu d ies). Ha yes , wh i ch w e m enti oned abo ve, hel d tha t w hether a cr i m e i s o ne o f “do m es ti c vi o l en ce ” depe nds o n the iden tity o fthe v i ct i m r athe r tha n the e l ement s o fthe o ffen se . W he n des cr ibingw hy §9 22 ( g ) ( 9) w as e na ct ed, the C ou rt w rote (129 S. Ct
. at 1087): Ex i sting fel on- i n-pos ses si on l aw s, Congr ess r eco gni z e d, we r e n o tk e e pi ngfi r e a r ms o uto fthe h a nd s o fdo m es ti c ab us er s, b ec au se “manype o pl e who engag e in ser i ous s po u salo r chi l d abuse ult i m at ely ar e no t cha rg ed w i th o r convi cted o f fel oni es. ” 1 42 Cong. R ec. 22985 ( 1996 ) (st ate m ent o f Sen
. La ut enberg). B y e xt en d ing th e fed eral firearm prohibi ti on to per sons convi cted o f“m i sdem eanor cri m e[ s] o fdom est i c vi ol ence, ” pro p onents of § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 9 ) s o ughtto “ c l o s e thi s da ng e r o us l o o ph ole
. ” Id
. , at22 986. C on st ru in g § 9 22 (g)(9 ) to ex c lu d e t h e d om es tic abuserco nvi cted un d er a gener i c use- of

- f or ce st at u te (on e t h at d oe s n otd es ign at e a d om e s tic re la t i o n s h ip as an ele m en t o f th e o ffen se ) w ou ld f r u s t r a t e C o n g r e s s ’ ma n i fe s tp u r p o s e . F i r e a r ms an d d om es tic st rife ar e a p ot en tia lly d ea d ly c om b inati on nat i onw i de. There ar e three pro posi ti ons i n thi s pass age : fi rst that dom est i c ab user s o ften com m i t a cts that w oul d be char ged as fel onies ifthe victim w ere a s tran ger, bu t tha t are charg ed as m i sdem eanor s be cause the v i cti m i s a r el ati ve (im p lyi ng tha t the per petra tor s a re as danger ous a s12 N o. 08

- 3770 felo n s); se c on d th at fir e a rm s a re d ea d ly in d om es tic stri fe; and thi rd thatper sons convi cted o fdom est i c vi ol en ce a r e l i k ely t o offe nd a g ain, s o tha t k ee pi ngthe m o stl etha l wea po n o uto fthe i r ha nds i s v i ta l t o the safetyo fthei r re l ati ves. Data supp or t a l l thr ee ofthes e propos i ti ons. St ar t with prosec u ting dom est i c vi ol ence as a m i sdem eanor when si m i l aract s a gainst a st ra ngerwould be a fel o ny ( a pr ac ti ce o fte n c al l ed “u nde r ch ar g i ng ”)
. Pr o se cuto r s f ac e two maj o r o bs ta cl es t o o bt aini ngfel o ny c o nvi cti ons: so m e f am i l y m em ber s a re wil l i ng to f or gi ve the a ggr ess or s in or der t o re sto re har m oni ous r elati ons, w hi l e o ther s a re so te rr i fi ed that they doubt the abi l i ty ofthe pol i ce t o prot ect thei r safety
. Ei therway, victi m s o f dom est ic vi ol ence ar e l ess wil l i ng to co oper ate with p ro secuto rs , w ho m ay need to re du ce charg es to ob ta in eve n l i m i ted co oper ati on a nd thus s om e co nvi cti ons. S ee Ev e S. Buzaw a & C ar l G. Buzaw a, D om e s t i c Viol e nc e : The C rim ina l Justice R espo nse 1 7 7

– 8 9 ( 3 d e d. 2002)
. I nd e e d, ei therf or gi venes s o r feari nd uces m any v i cti m s not to re portt h e at tackto beg i n w i th. The r esul t i s that m any a ggr ess or s e nd up w i th no convict i on, o r a m i sdem eanorco nvi cti on, wh en sim i l arvi ol ence aga i nst a st ra n ge r w ou ld p ro d u c e a felon y c on vic tio n . See , e.g., R ep o r to f t h eF l or i d a S u p r e meC o u r tG e n d e rB i a s S t u dyC o mm i s s i on , reprinte d in 4 2 Fla. L
. Rev
. 803, 859– 60 (1990); S ar ahEa to n & Ari el l a H y m an, Th e D om es ti c Vio le n ce C o m po nen t of th e New Yo rk Ta sk F o r c e R epo rt on Wo m en in th e C o urts: A n E v a lua tio n a nd A ssessm ent o f New Yo rk C ity C ourts , 1 9 F o r d ha m U rb. L
. J. 391, 461– 62 (1992); Patr i ck A . Langan & Chri sto pher A. I nnes, Pr e ve nt i ngN o. 08

- 3770 13 D o m estic Vio lenc e A ga inst Wo m en 2 ( Bu re au ofJ usti ce Statistics 1986 ). That fi re arm s cause i nj ury ordeath in dom est i c si tuati ons al so has be en es tabl i sh ed. Dom est i c as saul ts w i th f i re a r ms a r e a pp r o xi mat e l y t we l v e t i mes mo r e l i k e l y to end in t h e vi cti m ’ s death than a re as saul ts by kni ves or fi s t s . L i n d a E
. S a l t z ma n, J a me s A
. Me r c y, P a t r i c kW. O’Carr ol l, M ar k L. Rosenbe rg & Phil i p H
. Rhodes, We apon Involvem entand Injury O utcom es in Fam ily and Inti m ate A ss aults , 267J. A m . M ed ica l A ss ’n 30 43 (1 99 2). P ar t o f th is effect ste m s fro m the f act that som e wo u ld

-be abuser s g o buy a gun, see Susan B. So re nson & Dougl as J. W i ebe, Weap o ns in th e L ives o f B a ttered Wo m en , 94 A m . J
. Pub. H ea l th1 41 2 ( 20 04 ) , a nd much fr o m the f ac t th atg uns ar e m or e l ethalth an k n ives and cl ubs o nce an att ack begins. S ee Zim ring, F ir earm s & Violence, sup ra . The pre sen c e o fa g u n in t h e h om e o f a c on vic te d d om es tic abuse r i s “ s t r o ng l y a nd i nd e pe nd e nt l ya s s o c i a t e d wi th ani nc r ea se d r i sko fhomi ci de. ” ArthurL. Kel l er m ann, et al., Gun O wnership as a Ri s k F ac t orf orHom i ci dei n the Ho me, 32 9 N ew E ngl and J
. M edi ci ne 1084, 10 87 ( 1993 )
. S ee als o, e.g. , Jac q u ely n C . C am p b ell, etal., Ri s k F ac t ors f or Fem ici de i n AbusiveRela ti onships: Resul ts from a M ultisi te CaseCont r ol St udy, 93 A m . J
. Pub. H eal th 10 89, 109 0 (20 03 ); Jam es E . B aile y, et al., Risk Factors for Violent D eath o f Wo me n i n t h eHo me, 1 57Arc hi ve s o fI nt erna l M edi cine 777 ( 1997 ) ; D ougl as J
. W i ebe, Hom i ci dean d S ui ci de R isks A ssoc ia ted w ith Firea rm s in the H o m e : A Na tio na l C a seCont r ol St udy, 41 A nnal s o fEm er gencyM edi ci ne 77 1 ( 20 03). A nd f orthi s purpose the vi cti m s incl ud e pol i ce as w el l as s p ou ses , chi l dren, and i nti m ate partners . Re-14 N o. 08

- 3770 sponding to a dom est i c- dis tu rbance ca l l i s a m ong an offi cer ’s m ostr i skyduti es. A pp ro xi m ate l y 8 % o fo ffi cer s’ f atal i ti es f ro m i l l ega l co nd uct duri ng 19 99 thro ugh 200 8 ar ose f ro m att em pts to contr ol dom est i c d isturbances
. F B I, L a w En

f o r c e me n tOf

f i c e rs K i l l e da n d A s s a u l t e d 20 08 T able 19 (2009). Finally, the r e c id ivi sm rate i s high, i m p lyi ng that there a r e s ub s t a nt i a l b e ne fi t s i n k e e pi ngthe mos tde a dl y we a po n s o u t of th e ha n d s of d om es tic ab u se rs . Fo r ex am p le, a st u d y of p er so n s arre st ed for m isd em ea n or d o m e st ic vi o l en ce i n Ci nc inna tic o nc l ude d tha t 17 % o ftho se who re m ain ed in t h e a re a w er e a rre st ed ag ain for d om es tic v i o l e n c e w i th i n th r e e y e a r s . J o h n Wo o l d r e d g e & A my Thist l ethwait e, R e c o n s i d e r i n gDo me s t i cVi o l e n c eR e c i d i v i s m: Indi vi dual an d Cont ext ual Eff e cts of Co urtD i s pos i t i ons an d Stake i n Co nform ityvi( 1999 )
. The fullr ec id ivi sm r ate i ncl ud es vi ol ence that does not l ead to an a rr est
. Esti m ate s of thi s r a t e c o me f r o m s ur v e y r e s e a r c h a nd r a ng e f ro m 40 % to 80 % “ w h e n vic tim s a re follow ed lon git u d in ally an d i nt erv iew ed directly.” C arla Sm ith Stover, D om es ti c ViolenceRese arch , 20 J
. I nter perso nal Vi ol en c e 4 48, 45 0 (20 05 ). See als o Ju lia C . B ab c oc k, etal., D o es B a tterers’ Tre atm entWork? A M et a-A nalyticReview of D om es ti c Viol e nc eTr e at m e nt, 23 Cl i ni calPsyc hol ogyRev. 10 23, 10 39 ( 200 4) (est i m ati ng a 35% r eci divi sm r ate bas ed on par tne r s ’ r e po r t s )
. S k o i e n c i t e s , as i fi twe r e f a v o r a b l e , a s t ud y showing that w i thi n thr ee years o fco nvi cti on 4 8% o fdo m es ti c ab us er s “s us pen ded” th ei r abus i ve c o ndu ct

— w hi ch m eans that the o ther52 % di d not, an d that ev en th e 4 8% m ay h av e c o m m itt ed n ew cr im es w ith in th ree years after con v ic tion. John H
. La ub & Rob ert J.N o. 08

- 3770 15 S ampso n, Un d e rs t a n d i n gDe s i s t a n c ef r o m C r i me, 2 8 C r i me & J us t i c e 1 , 3 1 ( 2 0 0 1 )
. No mat t e r ho w y o u s l i c e thes e n u m b er s, p eo p le c o n vic te d of d om es tic vio len c e re m ain dangero us to thei r spouses and partners . B y t he t i m e th i s appe alr ea ch ed o r ala r g um en te n b anc, Sk oi en’ s p rin ci pal ar gum ent had s hi fted. I nstea d of den y i ngthe l o g ical a nd e m pi r i ca l b as i s o f§ 92 2( g ) ( 9) , he conte nd ed tha t C ongr ess o ver re ached by cre ati ng a “perpetual ” di squal i fi cati on f orper sons convi cted of dom est i c vi ol ence. Thi s g oes to o f ar, acc or ding to Sk oi en, bec ause the p ro p ensi ty f orvi ol ence decl i nes with ad va n c ing a ge, and peopl e who ar e no t co nvi cted o f addi ti o na l o ffen se s ha ve de m o nstrated tha t th eyno lon ge r pose ri sks to o therm em ber s o fthei r househol ds. A pp l yi ng §9 22( g) ( 9) to o l der per sons w ho have notbee n in leg al trou b le for m an y yea rs c an n ot b e su b st an tia lly re l at ed to a n i m po r ta ntg o ve r nm en ta l o bj ec ti ve , the ar gum ent c oncl ud es. A l though the sta tute provi des that ex pu ngem ent, pardon, o r re sto ra ti on of ci vi l r i ghts m eans that a co nvi cti on no l o ng erdi squa l i fi es a pe r so n fr o m po ss es sing fi r ea r m s, s ee 1 8 U. S
. C. § 92 1( a) ( 33 ) ( B) ( i i ) , S k o ie n mai ntai ns that, as a pract i calm att er, thes e r outes to r est or ati on a re unavai l able to dom est i c-batt er y m i sdem eanants i n Wi s c o n s i n . We h a v e o u rdo ub t s . A s th e S u p r e me C ou rtob se rv ed inLo ga n v . U nited Sta tes , 5 52 U
. S. 2 3 (2007), al though W i sco nsi n does not depri ve m i sdem eanants of t h e c i v i l r i gh ts to vo te , ser ve on a j u ry , or h old p u b lic offi ce

— s o th e s e r i g h t s c a n n o t b e “ r e s t o r e d ” b y t he p assa ge of tim e, as fel ons ’ r ights oft e n are

— the s tat e16 N o. 08

- 3770 does gi ve m i sdem eanants an opp or tuni ty to see k par don orexpungem ent. S om e o fthe l ar ges t s tat es m ake expun gem ent avai l abl e as of ri ght to m i sdem eanants w ho have a cl ean r eco rd f ora sp ec ified ti m e. Cal i f or ni a, f o r e xa mpl e , h a s s uc h a p r o g r a m . C al
. P e na l Co de §1203.4 a. See al so Rober t A. M i kos , En forc ing Stat e Law in Congres s ’s Sh adow , 90 Cor nel l L. Rev. 14 11, 14 63–6 4 & n n . 1 87, 18 8 ( 2005 ) ( fi nd i ng tha t e xpu ngem ent incre ase d f o l l o wi ngthe e na ct m en t o f§ 92 2( g ) ( 9) )
. Thi s m ea ns that §922 ( g) ( 9) i n i ts nor m alappli cati on does notcr eat e a per petualand unj usti fi ed di squal i fi cati on f ora perso n who no l o ng eri s apt to at ta cko th ermem be r s o fthe hous e ho l d. T r ue , the s t a t ut e t o l e r a t e s di ffe r e nto ut c o mes f o r pe r so ns c o nv i ct ed i n di ffer en t state s, b utthi s i s true o f a l l s i t u a t i o n s i n wh i c h a fi r e a r ms d i s a b i l i t y ( o r a ny o th era dve r se c o ns eque nc e) de pen ds o n st at e l aw. The Ju st ice s h eld inLogan th atth is v a r i a b ility d oe s n otca ll i nt o que st i o n fede r alfi r ea r m s l i m i ts b as ed o n s ta te c o nv i c t i o ns tha t ha v e b e e n l e ft i n pl a c e un de r the st ate s’ w i del y di spara te approaches to r est or i ng ci vi l r i ghts. Bu t l et us as sum e that the effect of§9 22( g) ( 9) sho uld be as sessed st ate byst ate , r atherthan f orthe nati on a s a w hole . T h e f act re m ai ns thatS koi en i s poo rl y s i tuate d to conte nd thatthe sta tute cre ate s a l i feti m e ba n f or som eone w ho does not pose any ri sk of furtheroffe n se s. Fi rs t, S koi en i s hi m sel f a re ci divi st, havi ng been convi cted tw i ce o fdom est i c ba tte ry . The firs t victi m ( i n 200 3) was h is w ife; aft er th at m ar ria ge en d ed , th e s ec on d vic tim ( i n 200 6) was hi s new fia ncée. A nd S koi en was ar re ste d f orp os sessi ng m ult i ple guns j ust o ne ye arafterthat seco nd co nvi cti on

— whi l e he was s ti l l o n pr o ba ti o n.N o. 08

- 3770 17 A pers on to w hom a statu te p rop erly a p p li es can ’t o b t a in relie f ba se d on arg u m en ts th at a d iffer en tly s i t ua t e d pe r s o n mi g ht pr e s e nt
. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sal e r no , 4 81 U. S
. 7 39 , 745 ( 19 87 )
. A l th o ug h the Sa l e r no pr i nc i pl e h a s b e e n c o nt r o v e r s i a l, a nd the J us t i c e s h a ve al l o we d “ o v e rb r e a dth” a r g ume nt s wh e n de a l i ngwi th law s th at restrict sp eech an d reach su bsta nt ially m o re conduct than the j usti fi cati ons advanced f or th e s tatute supp or t, se e St e ve ns , 130 S
. Ct. at15 87, the Court has continued to ci te Sa l e r no f avorab l y in other si tuati ons. Se e, e.g ., Washington StateG ra nge v. Washington State R epubl ican Pa rty, 552 U .S . 4 42, 449–50 (2008 ); cf. G o nz a les v . C a rha rt, 5 5 0 U. S
. 1 2 4 , 1 6 7

– 6 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( o b s e r v i ngthat “f aci al ” chal l enges to st atute s g ener al l y a re rest ri cted t o l i ti g at i o n un derthe F i r stAm en dm en t)
. I fc o nv i ct i o ns m ayb e us ed to l i m i t wher e se x off en der s ca n l i ve ( an d w hether they m ust r egi ste r) , se e Conne ct i cu tD epar t m e ntof Publ i c Saf

e ty v . D oe, 5 38 U. S
. 1 ( 20 03 ) , a di squa l i fi ca ti o n- o nc on v i c tio n st at u te su c h as §9 22 (g)(9 ) als o is g en er ally proper . W hethera m i sdem eanant w h o has be en l aw abi ding f oran e xtended p er i od m ust be all owed to carry gu ns again, even i f he c a nn ot satisfy §921 ( a) ( 33) ( B)( i i ) , i s a questi on notpre sente d today. There w i l l be ti m e e nough to co nsi der that su b j ect w hen i t a ri ses . A FFI RMED18 N o. 08

- 3770

The Second A m endm ent prov ides: “A w el l regulat ed M il it ia, 1 b ei ng n ec es s ar y t o the s ec ur i t y ofa f re e St at e, the r i ghtofthe peop le to k eep and bear Arm s, s hall not be i nf ri nged
. ” U.S. C ONST . am end. I I. S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e, diss en ting. St eve n Sk oi en was i ndi ct ed unde r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22 ( g ) ( 9) f o r po ss es sing a hunti ng sho tgun after he w as convi cted o fa m i sdem ea no r c r i m e o fdo m es ti c vi o l en ce . He a r g ue d i n the di st r i ctc o ur t an d r eitera te d he r e th ata ppl y i ngthe st atut e to hi s po ss es si o n o fa l o ngg un fo r hun ting vi ol ate d his S eco nd A m endm ent r i ght t o kee p and bear ar m s as e xpl aine d i n D i s t r i ctof Col um b i a v. H eller, 128 S
. Ct
. 2 7 8 3 ( 2 0 0 8 )
. T he g o v e r nme nti nv o k e d Heller’ s 1 a n t i c i p a t o r y l a n g u a g e ab o u tc e r t a i n “ p r e s u mpt i v e l y l a wful” fi r ea r m s r egul ati o ns

— s pe c i fi c a l l y, fel on- dispos ses si on l a ws

— as a sor t of “s afe h arb or ” for an alo go u s p ro h ibitio n s. Heller, 12 8 S
. Ct
. a t 28 16

- 17& n. 26 ; Br anno n P
. Denn i ng & G l enn H
. Reyno l ds, H el l er, H ig h Water (m ark)? L o w e rC o u r t s a n d t h eNe w R ig h tt o Ke ep an d B e a rA r ms , 60 H AS T I NGSL. J
. 12 45, 12 50 ( 2009 ) ( noti ng tha t Heller ’s di ct a ab o ut“ pr es um ptiv ely l awful ” ex ce pti o ns t o the Secon d A m en d m en t ri gh t m ay ha ve op en ed a “safe ha rbor” for a w ide sw ath of fi rearm s regulation). Thi s appr o ac h fel l f ars ho r t o fthe l eg alhe av y l i fting no r m al l y r equi r ed to j us ti fy c r i m i na l l y puni sh i ngthe exer ci se ofan e num er ate d consti tuti onalr i ght. The no w-v ac at ed pan elo pi ni o n r ej ec te d the g o ve r nmen t ’ s a r g ume nta nd i ns t e a d r e a d He l l er ’s h old in gs in l i g hto fi ts l i m i tingl an g ua g e ab o ute xc ep ti o ns , di st i l l i ngN o. 08

- 3770 19

a dec i si o n metho d f o cus ed fi r sto n a t ex tu al a nd hi s t o r i c a l i n q u i r y i n t o “ th e t e r ms o fth e [ S e c o n d A men dm ent] r i ght a s publ i cl y unde rs too d w hen the Bil l o f Rights was r ati fi ed, ” a nd then

— ifthis i n q uiry d idn ’t re sol ve the c ase

— an appli cati on o fa degre e o fhei ghtene d j ud i ci alr evi ew ap propri ate to the n atur e ofthe chal l enged law ’s b u rd en on th e rig h t. U nited Sta tes v. Sk o ien , 587 F
. 3d 80 3, 8 09 ( 7th Ci r . 2 009). Be ca us e th e g o ve r nm en t hadn ’ t a rgued that dom est i c- vi ol ence m i sdem eanants wer e ex cl ude d fr o m the s co pe o fthe S ec o nd Am en dm en t right as a tex tu al- histo r ica l m atter, w e assu m ed Skoi en ’s Se c on d A m en d m en t rig h ts w er e in ta c t. Id. at 810. N or ha d the g o ve r nm en t tried to e st ab l i sha s tr o ngr el at i o nshi p between the i m port ant g ove rnm entalo b j ecti ve of re du ci ng fi rearm vi ol ence aga i nst dom est i c i nti m ate s and § 92 2( g) ( 9) ’ s per m anent di sar m am en t o fdom est i cvio len c e m isd em ea n an ts lik e S k o i en . Id. a t8 1 4
. S o we va c a t e d S k o i e n’ s c o nv i c t i o n a nd r e man de d fo r a pp l i catio n of in t e rm ed iat e s c ru tin y on an ap p ro p ria te ly d ev elop ed rec or d
. Id. at 815- 16. T h e e n ba n c co u rtn ow p er for m s t h e an aly sis th at w ou ld have occur re d on r em and had w e no t re h eard thi s ca se. T h at ’s u n d er st an d ab l e , I su p p os e, giv en th e c on sid er ab le sh i ft i n the g o ve r nm en t’ s ap pr o ac h b efo r e th e enb an c cou rt. M y coll eagu es fl ag th e recalibration i n S koien’s ar gu m en t o n reh ea rin g, M ajorit y O p . a t 1 5, b u t itis j us t as i m po r ta nt

— ev enmor e so , Ithi nk

— that the gov ernm en t ha s (be l at edl y ) de ve l o ped ar g um en ts abo utthe or igin alm eani ng o fthe Se cond A m endm ent r i ght and the m eans-e nd j usti fi cati on for§ 922( g) ( 9)
. The go ver nm ent arg u ed on r ehear i ng tha t dom est i c- vi ol ence20 N o. 08

- 3770

m i sde m ea na nt s ar e ex cl ude d fr o m the s co pe of the Secon d A m e nd m en t ri gh t as it w as origi na ll y un d erstood , or ifthey are not, th a t § 922(g)( 9) survives interm edi at e sc r ut i ny, a t l ea sta s appl i ed to S k o i en . M y c o l l e a g ue s di s c us s b utdo n o tde c i de the s c o pe questi on and a voi d the sta nd ar d-o f

- re vi ew “qu agm i re ” by si m plyacc epti ng the go ver nm ent’ s “ c oncessi on” that “s om e f o r m of st ro n g s h ow in g (’in te rm ed iat e s c ru tin y,’ m an y op in io n s s a y) is es se n tia l, an d th at §9 22 (g)(9 ) is val i d onl y i fs u bsta nti al l y r el ate d to an i m port ant g over nm entalo bj ecti ve. ” M aj or i ty Op
. at8. W hen i t co m es to applyin g thi s s tandard, theygi ve the g ove rnm ent a deci si ve a ss ist ; m osto fthe em pir i caldata ci ted to su st ain § 92 2(g )(9) h as be e n s u p p lied by th e c ou rt . Th is i s a n od d w ay to pu t the go ver nm ent t o i ts burden of j us ti fy i nga l aw tha t pr o hibi ts the e xe r ci se o fa c o ns ti tu
ti o na l r i g ht
. W i thr es pec t, Ic anno t j o i n the e n b an c op in

i o n . T h e c ou rtd ec lin es to be ex p licitab ou t it s d ec isi o n metho d, s e nd s do c t r i na l s i g na l s tha tc o nfus e r a the r th anc l ar i fy, a nd d evelo ps i ts o wn r ec o r d t o s uppo r t th e gov er nm ent’ s a pp l i cati on o f§ 922( g) ( 9) to thi s defendant. M y c o l l ea g ue s st ar t wi th a n i nc o m pl et e r ea di ngo fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s o pi ni o n in Heller. T he y say the C ou rt hel d onl y t ha t“ the S e c o nd Amen dme ntc r eat es i nd i v i du a l r i g ht s , o ne o fwhi c h i s ke e pi ngo pe r a b l e h a nd

guns athom e forse l f

- defe nse. W hat o therenti tl em ents th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t cr ea te s, a nd w ha t r egul at i o ns l egi sl atur es m ay est abl i sh, were l eft op en. The o pini on i s no t a co m p re hensi ve code; i t i s j ust a n expla nati on f orthe Court’ s di sposi ti on. ” M aj or i ty Op
. at4.N o. 08

- 3770 21

A k h il R ee d A m a r, H el le r, H L R , a nd Hol i s t i c Legal R e a s o ni ng, 2 122 H AR V . L. R EV . 14 5 , 14 7(20 0 8 ). Id. 3 S a n fo rd L ev in so n, U ni t ed Sta te s: A ss es si ng H el le r, 7 I NT ’ L J. 4 C ONST . L. 316, 319 ( 2009) Iap p reciate th e m inim ali st im p ulse , b u t this ch aract eriz a t ion of Heller i s ha r dl y f ai r . I t i g no r es the Co ur t’s ex te ns i ve a na l ysis o fthe o r i g i na l pub l i c m ea ni ngo fthe Se cond A m endm ent and und er sta tes the opi ni on’ s ce ntra l hol dings : that the A m endm ent secur es ( not “cr eat es” ) an i nd i vi du al n at u ral r i ght o far m ed defe nse no t l i m i ted to m ilitia se rv ice , H eller, 128 S. C t. at 2801 , and at the core o f thi s g ua r a nt e e i s the r i g ht t o k e e p a nd b e ar ar m s f or d efe n se of se lf, fam ily, an d h om e, id. at 2 7 9 7

- 9 9; see also id. at 2817( i nval i dati ng the D i str i ct o fCol um bi a’ s ba n on h an d gu n p ossess ion beca us e “th e inh eren t ri gh t of selfdefen se ha s be enc en tr alt o the S ec o nd Am en dm en t ri ght” and the D.C. hand gun ban “exte nd s . . . to the hom e, w here the need f ordefense ofse l f, f am ily, a nd pro perty i s m ostacute”); M cD onal d v
. Ci ty of Chi cago , N o. 08

- 1521 , 201 0 WL 2 5 5 5 1 8 8 , a t* 2 2 ( U. S
. J un e 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( pl ural i ty o pi ni o n) ( The “ ce nt r alho l di ngi n Heller ” i s “that th e Se cond A m endm ent pr ote cts a per sona l r ight to kee p an d bear arm s for law ful pu rp oses, m ost not ably for selfd efe n se w ith in th e h om e.” ). Hellerwas “the bi gge st Secon d A m en d m en t case ev er de cid e d ,” a “l an d m ark 2 ru lin g [t h at ] m er its ou r at te n t i o n f or its m et h od as w ell as i ts r es ul t, ” “ th e m o ste xt en si ve c o ns i der ation o fthe 3 Se c on d A m en d m en t b y t h e Su p re m e C ou rtin it s h ist or y,” 4 and “the m ostexplicit l y a nd se l f

- consci ousl y o ri gi nal i st22 N o. 08

- 3770

C a s s R . Su n ste in , S ec on d A m en d m en t M inim alism : H el le r as 5 G ri swold , 122 H AR V . L. R EV . 24 6 , 24 6 (20 0 8 ). The Supr em e Cour t he l d i n M cDonal d tha tthe S e c on d Amen d- 6 m en t“a pplies e qua l l y t o the Fe der al Gover nm en tan d the S t a t e s . ” M cD on al d v. C i ty of C hi cago , N o . 0 8

- 1 5 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 WL 2 5 5 5 1 8 8 , at *2 8 (U .S. Ju n e 2 8 , 20 1 0 ) (p lu ra lit y o p in io n ). o pi ni o n in the hi st o r y o fthe S upr eme Co ur t.” Iti s true 5 that Heller l eft m any i ssues o pen, bu t that i s no t a n i nvi tation to m arginalize t h e C ou rt’s holding s or disregard i t s de c i s i o n metho d. The en ba nc co urt re ads Heller’ s r efer en ce to exce pti o ns as a w ar n in g n o t to ap p ly th e o p in ion to o b ro ad ly. Fa ir enough. Thi s “ precau ti onar y l anguage ”

— es pec i al l y the i ncl usi on o ffel on- disqual i fi cati on l aw s o n the l i st of “pr es um pti ve l y l awful ” fi r ea r m s r egul at i o ns

— is “i nform ati ve” but not“di sposi ti ve, ” a nd co nveys a m ess age th at “w h et h er or n ot te c h n ica lly d ict u m , a c ou rtof ap p ea ls m us t r es pec t. ” M aj o r i tyOp. a t 4, 7
. I agr ee, a nd a l l the m ore so after M cD ona ld
. 2010 W L 2555 188, at *25 ( plur al i ty 6 op in ion ) (r eit er at in g t h e p re su m p tiv e v alid ity of ce rt ain “l o ng s t a nd i ngr e g ul a t o r y me a s ur e s ” )
. Bu tmy c o l l e a gues are not clear about how this l im iti ng dicta shou ld inform th e c on st itu tio n al a n aly sis . Th e c ou rtth in ks it “n ot
. . . p rofi table to p arse th ese p a ssage s of Helleras i fthey c on ta in ed an an sw er to th e q u es tio n w h et h er §9 22 (g)(9 ) is val i d,” M aj or i ty Op
. at4, but proce eds to p ar se the pass a g e s a ny wa y . My c ol l eag ue s r e a d Heller ’s dict a to m ean that “ sta tutor y pr ohibi ti ons on the poss ess i on o f w eapons by som e perso ns ar e pr oper

— an d , i m p or ta n tlyN o. 08

- 3770 23 f o r c ur r en t pur po se s, tha t th e l eg i sl at i ve r o l e di d no t en d i n 179 1. That som e c at eg or i call i m i ts ar e pr operi s par t o f the o ri gi nal m eaning , l eaving to the peopl e’ s e l ecte d re prese ntati ves the fi l l i ng i n ofdetai l s. ” Id. The r e ar e se ve r alpr o bl ems wi ththi s an al y si s. F i r st, no on e h a s s ug g e s t e d tha tthe l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e e nd e d in 1 7 91; th e p e r t i n e n tqu e s t i o n i s h o w c o n t e mpo r a r y g u n l a ws shoul d be eval uated to deter m i ne wh ethertheyi nfr i nge the S eco nd A m endm ent r i ght. M or e s i gni fi cantl y, that “c at eg o r i ca l ” di sa r m amenti s “pr o per ” as “ par t o fthe or i gi na l m eani ng” o fthe Se cond A m endm ent has not b e e n es ta b lish ed
. Heller c e r t a i nl y di d n o ts a y thi s ; i ts re fer ence to excepti ons w as

— an d r emai ns

— un e xp l a i ne d. S e e H eller, 12 8 S
. Ct. at28 21 ( “[ S] i nce thi s ca se re prese nts th i s Cou r t’ s fi r sti n- depth e xa m i na ti o n o fthe S ec o nd Am en dm en t, o ne s ho ul d n ot ex pec t i t to c l ar i fy the en ti re fiel d .
. . . [ T] he r e wi l l b e ti m e en o ug h t o e xpo und u p on . . . th e e x c ep tio n s w e h av e m en tio n ed
. . . .”); M cDonald, 20 10 W L 2 5551 88, at * 25 ( plur al i ty opi ni on) ( re peati ng, w ith ou t m or e, Heller’ s “assu ran ces” abou t exc ep tions). M y c o l l ea g ue s impl y tha t th e o r i g i na l mean i ngo fthe Se cond A m endm ent r i ght e xcl ud ed pers ons c onvict ed of a c rim e, ci tin g t h e M in or ity R ep or t o f th e P en n sy lva n ia r at i fy i ngc o nv en ti o n, i n whi chPe nnsy l va ni a’ s di ss en ting Anti

- F ederal i st s pr o po se d a m en dm en ts t o the ne w Const i t u t i o n f o r th e p r o t e c t i o n o fi n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s , i n c l u d i ng th e righ t t o b ea r ar m s. M ajorit y O p . at 5 ; s e eal s o S T EP HE N P. H A L B R OO K , T HE F O UN D ERS ’ S ECOND A MEN DMEN T : O RI GINSOF THE R I GH TT O B EAR A RM S 19 5 (20 08 )
. The Pe nns y l va ni a di ss en te r s pr o po se d a n a m en dm en t g ua r an -24 N o. 08

- 3770 tee i ng tha t “ the peo ple h ave a r i ght t o bearar m s for defe nce of them sel ves and thei r own St ate or the U n ited S ta te s, o r f o r the purpo se o fk i l l i ngg ame, ” an d pr o vi di ng that “no l aw shal l be passed for d isarm i ng the peopl e o r any o fthem unl ess f orcr i m es com m i tte d, orr eald an ger ofpubli c i nj ury f ro m i nd i vi du al s. ” B ERNARD S CHW ART Z, 2 T HE B IL L OF R I GHTS : A D O CU M EN TARY H ISTORY 662, 66 5 (1971). I t i s t rue that Heller i denti fi ed this r ep ort a s
“ hi g hl y i nfl ue nt i al ” i n the r un - up t o the S e c o nd Amen dm en t, b uti t di d s o i n the c o nt ex t o fc o nc l udi ngtha t th e A m endm ent c odi fi ed an i nd i vi du alr i ght no t lim i ted to m i l i ti a s er vi ce. 12 8 S
. Ct. at28 04. There i s no r efer ence in Hellert o the “ un l e s s ” c l a us e i n the P e nn s y l v a ni a di sse nt er s’ pr o po sa l, an d ne edl es s to sa y, th i s l i m i ting l anguage di d not fi nd i ts w ay i nto the S eco nd A m endm ent. The court al so ass er ts that “[ m ] any o fthe sta tes , wh ose ow n co n st itu tio n s e n tit le d t h eir cit ize n s t o b e a rm ed , d id n otex te n d th is rig h t t o p er so n s c on vic te d o f cr im e.” M aj or i ty Op
. at5. Thi s i s a co nsi derabl e o ver sta tem ent. Onl y f o urs ta te c o ns ti tu ti o ns had whatmightb e co nsi dered S eco nd A m endm en t a nal ogue s in 179 1

— M ass achus etts, Nor thCa r o l ina, Pe nns y lvania, and Ve r m o nt

— an d n one ofthes e pr ovi si ons excl ud ed pers ons convi cted o f a c r i m e. See Heller, 128 S. C t. at 28 02 -03 ; M cD ona ld, 2010 W L 25 55 18 8, at *17 ; s e eal s o E u ge n e V olo kh , St a t eCons t i t u t i o n a l R ig h t s t o Ke ep a n d B e a rA r ms , 11 T EX . R EV . L. & P OL . 191 , 197 -20 4 (2 00 6); A m ar , s upra n ot e 2, at 172- 73 & nn . 10 1- 02
. The so ur ce s ci te d by th e co ur t f o r th i s very br o ad pr o po si ti o n s i m pl y do no t be ari t o ut
. To the c o ntr ar y, t wo o fthe c i te d wor k s sp ecifi ca l l y e m pha si ze the l ac k of fou nd ing-era eviden ce th at p erson s c o n v ic ted of aN o. 08

- 3770 25

The authori s l eg al c ouns elt o the Nati ona l R ifl e Ass oc i at i on 7 an d filed an am icu s br ief i n su p p or t of t h e d efend an t in this cas e; he will prob ably be surpris ed t o s ee hi s w ork const rued i n thi s way. Before m oving to the Firs t Am endm ent com paris on, how ever, 8 the c our tbr i efl y t ra c es the hi s t or y offede ra l fel on- di s pos s es s i on l aws , no t i ng thatthe “fi rs tfede ra l s t atut e disqu ali fyi ng fel ons fro m poss es si ng fir earm s w as not enac ted unti l 1938” and thatthi s law “als o disquali fie d m is dem eanants w h o had bee n c onvict ed o fvi ol en toffen s es . ” Maj or i t y Op. at5. The court the n c ompa r e s § 9 2 2 ( g) ( 9 ) t o the 1 9 3 8 Ac t i ns of a r as “§ 922( g)( 9)
. . . li ke the 1938A ctis li m it ed to viol ent cri m es . ” Id. at 6
. This i s a l itt le m is le ading. S ect ion 2( f ) ofthe 1938 Federal Fire arm s A ct( 15 U.S. C. §§ 901- 910, re pealed, Pub
. L. 90- 351, J une 19 , 19 68 ) c re at ed the firstfede ra l fi re ar m s di s abi l i t y a nd (co n tin u ed ...) cri m e were cate gor i cal l y e xcl ud ed fro m poss ess i ng fi re ar m s. See C . K ev in M ar sh all, Why C a n’t M a rtha St ew a rt Havea Gun? , 32 H ARV . J
. L. & P UB . P OL ’ Y 695, 728-35 (2009); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 10 47-50 (10th Cir. 2009 ) ( Tym kov i c h, J
. , co ncurr i ng)
. The thi rd, S tephen H albro ok’ s The Fo und e rs ’Se co nd Am e ndment, does not supp or t the co urt’ s s ugges ti on th at “ m any” sta tes d u r i n gth e f o u n d i n gp e r i o d i mp o s e d a g e n e r a l fi r e a r ms disabi l i ty on a nyone convi cted o fa cri m e. 7 Regar dle ss, the cour t haz ar ds these hist or i calo bser vati o ns b utul ti m at ely l ea ve s th e m at te r unr es o l ve d, moving on t o com pare cate gor i call i m i ts on fi re ar m s pos ses si o n t o c at eg o r i cal l i m i ts o n the fr ee do m o fs pee ch : “o b sc en ity , d efa m at ion , in c ite m en t to c rim e, an d ot h er s.” 826 N o. 08

- 3770

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 m a d e i t “ u n la w fu l fo r a n y p er so n w h o h a s b ee n co n v ic te d o f a c ri m e ofvi ol en c e . . . t o r ec ei ve any fi re ar m or am m uni t i on w h ic h h a s b ee n sh ip p ed o r tra n sp o rt ed in in te rs ta te co m m er ce .” A “cr im e ofviole nce” was defined in § 1(6 ) o f t h e A ctas “m ur der, m ans l augh t er, r ape , m ayh em , ki dnaping , bur gl ar y, ho use br e a ki ng ; a s s a ul twi th i nt e ntt o ki l l , c omm i tr a pe , o r r ob ; a ssa u lt w ith a d an g ero u s w eap on , or assau lt w ith inte nt to com m itany of fense pun is hable by im pris onm ent f or m ore tha n o n e y e ar.” O f the se, ho u seb rea k ing is likely the o nly m i s dem ea nor . The r es tofthe l isted cr i m es ar e s er i ous v iolen t felon ies. M aj o r i tyOp. a t 7. Adapt in gF i r stAm en dm en t do ct r i ne t o th e S e c o n d A me n d me n tc o n t e x ti s s e n s ib l e i n s o me case s; i nd eed, H e l ler express l y a pp ro ved the com pari son ofthe Se cond A m endm ent t o the F i rst. See 128 S. Ct. at 27 99 , 282 1; s e eal s o E u ge n e V olo kh , Im pl e m e nt i ng t he Righ tTo Ke ep an d Be arAr m s f orSe l f

- D e f e ns e : An Analyt i ca l Fram e workan d a Res e ar ch Age nda , 56 U C L A L . R EV . 1 4 4 3, 14 49 , 14 52 , 145 4-5 5 (2 00 9); N els on L u n d , The Se co nd Am e ndm ent, H el l er, and O riginalis t Jur is prudence, 56 U C L A L . R EV . 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 7 5

- 76 ( 200 9 )
. Bu tthi s p a r t i c ul a r F i r s tAmen dm en t an al o g y do es n’ t wor khe r e. Ob sceni ty, de f amat i o n, i nci tem ent, and so o n ar e a m ong the few “ ‘ w el l

- defined and narr owly l i m i ted cl ass es ofspeec h, the preve nti on and pu ni shm ent o fwh i ch have neverbee n thought to ra i se any Const i tuti onalpro bl em . ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. St e ve ns , 130 S. Ct. 15 77, 15 84 ( 2010 ) ( quoti ng C ha pli nsky v . New Ha m psh ire, 31 5 U .S. 56 8, 57 1-7 2 (19 42 )). T h es e “ h i s to ric an d t r adi ti o na l c at eg o r i es [ o fs pee ch ] l o ngf ami l i art o theN o. 08

- 3770 27

T he cou rt m en tion s N ew York v. Ferber, 4 5 8 U. S
. 7 4 7( 1982) 9 ( c hi l d p or no gr a ph y) , a nd G ar ce t t iv. C eba l l os , 547 U.S
. 410 ( 2006) ( pu b l i c - em pl oye e s pee c h) , as e xa m pl es ofc as es appr ovi ng c a t e go r i cal li m i t s o n s pe e c h tha tl a c k r oo t s i n Fi r s tAm e nd

me n th i s t o r y a n d t r a d i t i o n . Maj o r i t y O p . a t 7. A s th e S u p r e me Cour tm ade c l ea r i n St e ve ns , h o w ev er , “ Fe rber pre s e nt e d a s pec i al c as e: The m ar ke tf or c hi l d por nogr aphy was ‘ i nt ri nsi cal ly r el ated’ to the und erl ying abu se , a n d w a s ther ef ore ‘ an int eg ra l par tofthe pr oduc t i on ofs uc h m at er i al s , anac t i vity i l l eg al thr ougho utthe Nati on. ’ ” 1 30 S. Ct
. at15 86 ( quo t i ng F erber, 45 8 U .S. a t 7 5 9 , 76 1 ). F erber he l d tha tthe Fir stAm e nd

m en tha s ne ver be enunde rs t ood t o pr ot ec t“s pee c h o r wr i t i ng u sed as an integ ral p art o f con d u ct i n v iola tion of a v alid cr im in a l s t a t u te .” 4 5 8 U .S. a t 7 6 2 . A s su ch , F erber“ground ed it s analysi s in a previ o u sly rec ognized, long- es tabli shed cat egory ofunp rote ct ed speech .” S tev en s, 130 S. Ct. at 1586. G a rc et ti d id n o t h o ld tha t pu b lic-em p loy ee sp eech is w ho lly unpr ot ec t ed; whenpubl i c e m pl oye es “s pea k[ ] as c i t i ze ns abo ut (co n tin u ed ...) bar ” a re “o utsi de the re ac h o fthatA m endm ent a l together

— [ ] theyf al l i nto a ‘First Am endm ent F re e Zone. ’ ” Id
. at 1584-85 (qu otation m arks om itted ). Butmy c o l l ea g ue s el i de th e hi stor i ca l

- sc o pe que st i o n; th ey d o not d ec ide w he th er pe rson s con victed of a do mes t i c - v i o l e nc e mi s de mea no r ar e c o mpl e t e l y “ o ut s i de the r each” ofthe Se cond A m endm ent a s a m att ero f f o undi ng - er a hi st o r y a nd b ac k g r o und l eg alt r adi ti o n. Forthi s a nal ogy to hol d up , the cour t would have to m ake a j ud gm en t o n th e m atter. A bsen t tha t, it’ s hard to m ake se nse o fthe cour t’ s r el i ance o n thi s s tr ain o f Fi rs t Am endm ent doct rine. 928 N o. 08

- 3770

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 m at t er s ofpubl i c c onc er n, ” the F irstAm en dm en t“l i m i t s the abi l i t y ofa publ i c e m pl oye r t o l eve ra ge the e m pl oym en t re la tio n sh ip to re str ic t” th a t sp ee ch
. 5 4 7 U .S. at 4 1 9
. G ar ce tti dre w a di s t i nc t i on bet weena bona fi de fre e- s pee c h c l ai m by a pu blicem ployee and a m ere em ploym ent g ri ev ance: “[ W ] hen pu blicem ployees m ake s tat em ents p ursuant t o thei r offic ial d u ties, the e m p loy ees are no t spe ak ing as citizen s for First A m en d m en tpur pos es , an d the Cons t i t ut i on does no ti ns ul ate thei r c om m unicat ions from em ployer dis ci pline. ” Id
. a t4 2 1
. As the Sup rem e Court ex plained: “Un derly in g o ur cas es has b een t h e p rem ise that w hile th e F irst A m en d m en t inv ests pu blicem ployees w ith cer tai n ri ghts, i t does not em pow er them to ‘ const itutional ize the em ployee gri evance. ’ ” Id
. at 420 (quoti ng C on n i ck v. M yers , 46 1 U .S. 1 3 8 , 15 4 (19 8 3 )). G ar ce tti thus dec l i ne d t o e xpa nd the t ra di t i ona l unde rs t andi ng o fthe f re e- s pee c h r i ght s ofpubl i c e m pl oye es i n o rde r t o pr eve nt the “ c ons t i t ut i ona l i za t i on” ofe m pl oym en tdi s put es abo ut st atem ents m a d e in the cours e ofcar rying out j ob-re lat ed d u tie s. Id. I t ’ s worth n ot i ng as wel l the Cour t ’ s c aut i on i n St e ve ns : “ F erber and o the r c as es c ann otbe t ake n a s e s t abl i s hi ng a freew he el i ng author ity to dec l ar e ne w cat eg or i es ofs pee c h o ut s i de the sc ope of the Firs t Am endm ent. ” 130 S. Ct. at 1586. M or eo ve r, it is on e t h in g t o s ay th at ce rt ain n ar ro w ly l i m i ted cat ego ri es ofspeec h have l ong been un d ersto od to f al l o ut side th e bo unda r i es o fthe fr ee - spe ec h r i g ht an d are th u s u n p ro te c te d by th e F i r s t A m en d m en t. It is q u it e ano th er to say tha t a certain ca tegory of p e rs ons has l ong been und er sto od to f al l o utsi de the boundari es ofthe Se cond A m endm ent a nd thus m ay be e xcl ud edN o. 08

- 3770 29

This part ic ular anal ogy i s inapt f or otherreas ons that nee d 10 n o t b e e la b o ra te d h er e. Seege ner al ly E u g en e V o lo k h, TheFi r s ta nd S ec on d A m en d m en ts , 109 C OLUM . L. R EV . S I DEBAR97 ( 2009) ( e x pl a i ni ng why the a na l og y be t we e n the S e c on d Amen dm en t a n d F ir st A m en d m en t o b sc en ity ju ri sp ru d en ce is fla w ed ). f r o m ever exer ci si ng the ri ght. The r el evantquesti on f o r o urp ur po s e s i s wh e the r do mes t i c - v i o l e nc e mi s demea na nt s a r e wh o l l y u npr o t e c t e d b ythe S e c o nd Amen dm en t. By i nv o k i ngthi s l i ne o fF i r stAm en d m en t case law , m y coll eagu es im p ly an a ff irm ative an sw er, butdo no t se e th e an al y si s th r o ug h. 10 The b et te r a ppr o ac h i s to a cknow l edg e th e l i m i ts o fthe sco pe i nquir y in a m or e str ai ghtf or w ar d w ay: The hi sto r i ca l e vi den ce i s i nc o nc l us i ve a t be st
. As no te d i n the panel o pini on, scho l ar s di sag re e about th e ex tent to whi ch f

e l ons

— l et al one m i sdem eanants

— wer e co nsi der ed ex cl ude d fr o m the r i g htt o b ea r a r m s dur i ngthe fou n d i n g e ra . Com pare, e . g. , M ar sh all, sup ra , at7 14

- 28 ( th e f o undi ng - er a unde r st an ding o fthe r i g htt o k ee p a nd be ara r m s f o r se l f

- defen se di d no t ca te g o r i ca l l y e xc lu d e p er so n s c on vic te d of a c rim e), with Don B. K ate s & C lay to n E . C ra m er , Se co nd Am e ndmentLi m i t at i ons an d Cri m i nol ogi ca l Considerat i ons , 60 H ASTING S L
. J. 1339 , 13 59- 64 (2009) (the foun d ing gen eration u nd erstood th at p ersons convi cted o fco m m on- l aw fel oni es c ou ld be disar m ed ), andD on B . K at es , Jr., Handg un Proh i b i t i on and t he O r igi nal M e ani ng of

t heSe co nd Am e ndment, 82 M I CH . L. R EV . 20 4, 26 6 (1 98 3) (s am e ); see also A dam W i nkl er, H el l er ’s Catc h- 22 , 5 6 UCL A L. R EV . 1 5 5 1 , 1 5 6 2

- 6 6 (2 0 0 9 ) ; Lu nd ,30 N o. 08

- 3770

N o o ne ar gue s thatSk oi en ’ s p os s es s i on ofa hunt i ng s hot gun 11 f orhunti ng i s un pr ot e c t e d a s a m a t t e r o fthe S e c on d Amen dm en t’s o ri g in a l m ea n in g . S ee H eller, 12 8 S. Ct. at 28 01 ( “A m ericans valued t h e a n ci ent ri ght .
. . f or s el f

- defe nse a nd hunt i ng .” (em p h a sis ad d ed )). M cDonal d d id no t elab or ate o n h ow this a n a l y sis s ho u ld 12 pr oc e e d. Th e pl ur a l i t y r e i t e r a t e d Hel l er’ s poi ntthatthe s c ope of the Sec ond Am e nd m e ntr i gh ts ho ul d n otbe de t e r m i ne d b y “ju d icial inter est b ala nc ing .” 2 01 0 W L 2 55 51 88 , at *24 ( p lur ality opi ni on) ( “I n Hel l er, . . . w e ex press ly r ej ect ed the ar gum ent that the sc o pe ofthe Sec ond Am endm ent ri ght s hould be determ i ne d by j udi c i al i nt er es tbal anc i ng. ”)
. Butthe pl ur al i t y di d not addre s s ho w in f ring em en tc l ai m s s houl d be dec i ded i fthe inq u iry into the o rig ina l scop e o f t he righ t d oe sn’t clear ly e x c l ude the c l a i m o r c on c l us i ve l y r e s ol ve i ta ga i ns t t he g ov er nm en t, as i n Hel l er it se lf. S ee Hel l er, 128 S. Ct. at 2821 ( “[ W ] hatever e ls e [ the Second A m endm ent] l eave s to future eva l uat i on, i ts ur el y e l eva t es abo ve al l othe r i nt er es t s the ri ght of l aw- abi di ng, re s pons ibl e c i t i ze ns t o us e ar m s in d efe n se o f he a rt h an d h o m e.” ). Heller h i n t e d th a tth e C o u r t ’s h ei g h te n ed

- s c ru tin y ju ri sp ru d en ce re m a in s re le v a n t. S ee 128 (co n tin u ed ...) sup ra , at 1 35 6-5 7; G len n H ar lan R ey n old s, A Cri t i ca l Guide t o the SecondAm e ndment, 62 T EN N . L. R EV . 46 1, 48 0 ( 1995 ) (coll ectin g ori ginalist scholarsh ip). W e s i m plycannotsa y w i th anycer tai nty that per sons convi cted o fa dom est i cvi o l en ce mis demea nor ar e whol l y e xc l ude d fr o m the S e c o nd Amen dme ntr i g hta s o r i gi na l l y u nd e r s t o o d. 11 Because S koi en i s no t ca te go rical l y unprot ecte d, the g over nm ent’ s use o f§ 922( g) ( 9) again st hi m m ust s urvi ve Se cond A m endm ent s crutiny. 12N o. 08

- 3770 31

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 12 S. Ct
. at28 17( The D
. C. handgun ban i s inva l i d “[ u] nderan y of the st and ards ofs cruti ny th a t w e hav e applie d to enum erat ed c ons t i t ut i ona l r i ght s . ”)
. Unl es s e ver y c l ai m ed i nfri nge m en tof the r igh t ge t s s t ri c ts c ru t i ny

— a p ro p osition d ifficu lt to re c onc i l e w i th Hel l er ’ s r efer en c e t o pr es um pt i vel y l awful fi re ar m s r eg u lati ons

— we ar e l eftt o c hoo s e f ro m am ong the C o u r t ’ s “ i n t e r me di a t e ” s t a n da r ds o fj u di c i a l r e v i e w. M y c ol l eagues e vi de n tl y a gr ee; theym ove o n to disc uss the sta nd ar d for deter m i ni ng w hether th e d i sar m amento fdo m es ti c- vi o l en ce m i sde m ea na nt s i s co nst itu tio n ally p er m iss ible . Th is i n q u iry is n ec es sa ry on ly i fS k o i e n ’ s S e c o n d Ame n d me n tr i g h t s a r e i n t a c tn o twi th

stan d ing his d om estic-viol en ce con viction. T h e cou rt proper l y c oncl ud es that som e for m o fhei ghtene d j ud i ci alscr uti ny i s r equi re d; ra ti onal

-basis r evi ew has b ee n ru led ou t. Heller, 128 S. C t. at 2 818 n. 27 ( “I fal l that w as re quir ed to ov er com e the r i ght t o kee p and bear ar m s was a r at i o na l b as i s, the Sec o nd Am en dm en t w oul d be r edun dant w i th the se parat e co nsti tuti onal p rohibitio n s on i rrational l aw s, an d w ou ld h ave n o effec t. ”); M aj o r i tyOp. a t 8. The c o ur t as su m es wi th o ut d e c i d i n gth a ti n t e r me d i a t e s c r u t i n y a p p l i e s , a n d h o l ds that data e stabl i sh a substa nti alr el ati onshi p between § 9 22( g) (9) and the i m port ant g ove rnm entalo bj ecti ve of “ p re ve n tin g a rm ed m ay h em .” Id . W hat fol l ows i s a di sc us si o n ofthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in U nited Sta tes v. Ha yes , 12 9 S. Ct. 10 79 ( 2009 )

— i n part i cul ar, i ts re fer ence to a s tat em ent in the c on gr ess i onalr eco rd by the pr i nci pal S enate sponso r of§ 922( g) ( 9)

— and seve ral pages ofso ci al

- sci ence re se arch on the cr i m i nal

-j usti ce32 N o. 08

- 3770

O n rebri efing bef ore the en banc cou rt, the gov ernm ent ci ted 13 se veral reports show ing h igh reci divism rat es am ong d om es ti c- (co n tin u ed ...) syste m ’s treatm en t of d om e s tic-vi olence cases, firearm vi ol ence i n the hom e, and r eci divi sm by dom est i c- vi ol ence offenders. M os t of thi s data, as Ihave not ed, has been supp l i ed by the c ourt
. T he c o ur t th us a cc ept s th ati t i s th e g o ve r nm en t’s burden to m ake a “st ro ng sho w i ng” o fthe danger- re du cti on j usti fi cati on f orst ri p p i ng dom est i c- vi ol ence m i sd em ea n an ts of th eir Sec on d A m en d m en t rig h ts bu t in the e nd m ake s the cas e fori tse l f
. Thi s r el i eve s the go vernm en t of its burd en and de p rives Skoi en of th e op p ortuni ty to re vi ew the outco m e- deter m i nati ve evi dence, l eta l o ne s ubj ec t i t to no r m ala dve r sa r i alt es ting . One o bv i o us per i l i n thi s appr o ac h: The c o ur t’ s unde r st an di ng o fth e r e s e a r c h o n d o me s t i c v i o l e n c e mi g h tb e mi s t ak en . That i s ce rt ai nl y t rue ofm y c ol l eagues’ concl usi on that “dom est i c ab u ser s o ften c om m i t a cts that w oul d be char g e d a s fe l o ni e s i f the v i c t i m we r e a s t r a ng e r, b utthat ar e char ged as m i sdem eanor s be cause the v i cti m i s a r el a t i v e . ” Maj o r i t y O p . a t1 1
. T h e c o u r th a s mi s r e a d the m at er i al s i t ci te s f o r thi s co nc l us i o n, wh i chdo cument th e w ell- r ec og n ize d d ifficu lty of p ro se c u tin g d om es tic vi o l en ce b ec au se o fv i ct i m fear o r no nc o o per at i o n b ut do notestabl is h t h a t acts of dom estic viol en ce are “often” charg eabl e a s fel oni es but f orthe dom est i c dyna m ic. Perh ap s the govern m en t can disch arge its burden i n thi s c a s e , b utthe p l a c e f o r i tt o do s o i n the f i rs t i nstance i s in the dist ri ct c ourt, notthe cour t o fappeal s. 13N o. 08

- 3770 33

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 13 v io le n ce o ffen d er s. S ee C a rl a Sm ith St o v er , Do me s t i c Vi o l e nce R ese arch: What Have We L earned and Where Do We G o From Here ? , 2 0 J. OF I NTERPE RSONAL V I OL EN CE 44 8 ( 20 05 ) ; J ul i a C. B ab coc k, et al ., D oes Batterers ’Treat m ent Work? A M et a-A n alyti c R evi ew o f Dome s t i c Vi o l e nc e Tr e a t me nt, 23 C L I NI CA L P S YCHO L . R EV . 1023 (2 0 0 4 ) ; Joh n H . L a u b & R o b er t J. Sa m p so n, Unde r s t a ndi ng De s i s t a nc e Fr o m C ri me, 28 C RI ME A ND J UST I CE 1 ( 2001) ; J ohn W o o ld re d g e & A m y T h ist le th w a ite , R ec o n sid er in g D o m es tic Vi ol enceR ec i di vi sm: Indi vi dual and Contextu al E ff ect s of C ou rt D is p o siti on s an d S tak e in C on form ity, Pr oj e c tRe po r tS ub

m itt ed to th e N a t’l In st. o f Ju sti ce (19 9 9 ), avai l ab le a t http://w w w . ncj rs . gov /pd ffi l e s 1 /ni j / grants / 188509. pd f( las t vi si ted J une 30 , 20 10 )
. On the m or e pre c i s e que s t i on ofthe r el at i ons hi p betweenr ea dy ac c es s t o a gun a nd the r i s k thata gun wil l be us ed aga i ns t a dom es t i c i nt i m at e, the go v ernm en t cited tw o stu d ies sho w ing a cor relatio n: J acq u eline C
. C am p b ell, et al. , R is k F ac tors for F em icide in A b u sive R elation sh ips: R esu lts f ro m a M ul t i si t e C as e C ont ro l St udy , 93 A M . J. OF P UB . H EALTH 1 0 8 9 (20 0 3 ), an d A rt h u r L . K el le r m a n n , et a l., G u n O w n er sh ip as a Ri s kF a c t o rf

o rHo mi c i d e i n t h e Ho me, 329 N E W E NG . J. M ED . 1084 ( 1993)
. The m ostrec ent of thes e, how ever, als o es tabli shes thata “pr i or ar re s tf or dom es t i c vi ol en c e ac t ual l y de c re as ed the risk for fem icid e, s u g g esting tha t arre st of a b u se r s pr ote cts a g a in st fu tu re in tim a te p a rt n er fe m ic id e ri sk s.” C a m p b el l, sup ra , at 10 9 2
. An othe r s t udy c i t e d b y the g ov e r nme nts ho ws that d om estic assau lts w ith a firear m a r e m or e likely to resu lt in d ea th th a n d o m es tic as sa u lts w i t h o t h er ty p es o f w ea p o n s. S ee L in d a E . Sa ltz m a n, et a l., We a p o n In v olv em en t an d Injury O u tco m es in F am ily an d In tim ate A ssa u lts , 26 7JA M A 30 4 3 (19 9 2 ). The cour t a l so dism i sse s S koi en’ s co ntenti on that § 9 22( g)(9) i s i m perm i ssibl y o ver i ncl usi ve because i t i s a perm anent di squal i fi cati on a nd pro vi des no effecti ve34 N o. 08

- 3770

The s t atut e was am en ded i n the 20 09 budgetbi l l t o m ake 14 exp u ng em en t av ailab le to o ffen d ers u nd er th e ag e of 25 a n d to bro ade n the c l as s ofc ri m es c ove re d t o i nc l ud e som e m i nor fel onies
. 2009 W IS . A CT 28 §§ 3 38 4- 33 86
. Buti tr em ai ns t ru e thate xpun gem en tm us tbe or der ed a tthe t i m e ofs en t en c i ng, and th e am en dm en tappl i es on l y t o s en t en c i ng pr oc ee di ngs occurri ng af terthe Act’ s effect ive date, J uly 1, 2009. Id
. at § 93 09 (1). Sk o i e n w as ov er 21 w he n co nv icted of do m estic batter y and w as se ntence d p ri or t o the am endm ent’ s effecti ve d ate. way f o r a n o ffen dert o rea cqui r e hi s S ec o nd Am en dm en t r i g ht s. I t i s true , a s th e co ur t no te s, tha t a pa r do n, ex pung ement, o r re st o r at i o n o fc i vi l r i g ht s wi l l l i ft th e fed er al fire ar m s b an . See 18 U .S.C . § 92 1(a )(33 )(B )(ii) ( excl ud i ng dom est i c- vi ol ence convi cti ons that h ave been pardoned, ex pu nged, o r f orwh i ch ci vi l r i ghts have b e e n r e s t o r e d un less the par don, expungem ent, o r re sto ra tion ofr i ghts provi des thatthe perso n m ay not posse ss fire ar m s). B u t a s m y c olle ag u es ac kn ow led ge , in W i sco nsi n m i sdem eanants do notl ose their c ivi l r i ghts, and ri ghts not l ostcannotbe “r est or ed” fo r p u rpos es of th e s ta tu to ry ex c ep tio n . See Lo ga n v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U. S
. 2 3, 3 6 ( 20 07 )
. The c o ur t no ne th el ess mai nt ains that “the sta te does gi ve m i sdem ean an ts an o pp or tuni ty to see k par don orexpungem ent. ” M aj or i ty Op
. at15

- 16. Pa r do n, y es ; e xpu ng em en t, no

— atl ea stno t i n the ty p ica l ca se . In W isc on sin th e e x p u n ge m en t re m ed y is extr em el y nar ro w ; i t a pp l i es only to m i sdem eanants und erthe age o f21 and m ust be o rd er ed a t the ti m e o f sente nci ng. W IS . S TAT . § 973.015(1)(a)
. Th ere is no after-

14 the- f act or ge nera l l y a vai l abl e o pp or tuni ty to see kN o. 08

- 3770 35

M y c ol l ea gue s e nga ge i n s om e ove rbr oad g en er al i za t i on 15 aboutthe av ai l abi l i t y ofe xpun ge m en ti n “ [ s ] om e ofthe l ar ge s ts t at es , ” Maj or i t y Op. at16 , c i t i ng the e xpun ge m en t s t atut e i n j us ton e

— Cal i f or nia

— and a l aw- re vi ew ar t i c l e the rel evant pass ages ofw hic h are source d to a few anecdotal new spaper art ic le s and em ail s to the au thor from cr im edata te chnology m anagers in four s tat es . From thi s m eager evidence, m y coll eagues c onfi dently concl ud e that “§ 922( g)( 9) i n i t s no rm al appl i c at i on does no tc re ate a p erpe t ual an d unj u s t i fi e d d i s q u a l i fi c a t i o n f o r a p e r s o n w h o n o l o n g e r i s a pt to at tac k other m em bers o f the household. ” Id. Thi s s t at em en t i s g r a t ui t ou s a nd un s up po r t e d. T h e c o u r t ’ s r e fe r e n c e t o “ mul t i p l e g u n s ” r e q u i r e s s o me 16 el abor at i on. Sk oi en ’ s c onvi c t i on was bas ed o n h i s pos s es s i on ofthe hunt in g s hotgun, which he adm it ted usi ng to kil l a deer on t h e m o rn ing of his arrest. Tw o o the r gu ns w ere fou nd in hi s ho m e: a han dgun a nd a hunt i ng r i fl e. The pr os ec ut or conceded that he could not prove the hand gun and rifle w ere Sko i en ’ s ; there w as e vi denc e s ugge s t i ng thatthe ha ndgun b elon g ed to S k o i e n ’s w ife and the rifle be lon g ed to the ir (co n tin u ed ...) ex p un gem en t. I t is tru e that the p ard on p ow er i s very broad , bu t Idou b t tha t govern ors

— i n W i sco nsi n or elsew he re

— pardon dom est i c- vi ol ence m i sdem eanants w i th anyr egul ar i ty. S o Sk oi en i s r i ght that the § 922( g) ( 9) b a n i s e ffe c t i v e l y p e r ma n e n t, a tl e a s ta s t o h i m. 15 This brings m e t o the co urt’ s fi nal poi nt: thatS koi en i s “ poor l y s i tu at ed ” t o com pla i n abo ut the perpetual nature o fthe § 9 22( g) ( 9) ban because h e is a re ci divi st w ho was caught w i th “m u ltip l e guns j ust o ne ye ar after[ hi s] se cond convi cti on

— w hi l e he w as sti l l o n proba

ti on. ” M aj or ity Op. at 16. M aybe so . S koi en’ s s tatus as

1636 N o. 08

- 3770

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 ro om m ate. N on eth eless, at sen ten cing Sk oien d id no t con test c ons t ru c t i ve pos s es sion ofthe t wo addi t i ona l guns f or p u rp oses o f incr easin g his b a se offense lev el b y tw o lev els underU. S. S. G. § 2K2. 1(b) ( 1) ( A)
. The par t i es ag re ed thatthe ha n d g u n “w as m ain tain ed f or p ro tection of the h om e” (these are the prosec utor’ s w ords) , and Sko ie n told the courtat se ntenci ng that there h a d been s everal att em pted b reak- ins at his hom e. M y coll eagues c los e with anoth e rina ppr opriate analogy. They 17 say that “[ i] fconvict ions m ay be used to lim it w h ere se x of fenders c a n l i ve ( and w hether the y m ust regi st er) , s ee C o n n ec ticutDepar t m entof

Pu bl i c Sa

fety v. Doe, 5 3 8 U .S. 1 (20 0 3 ), a d is qua l i fi c at i on- on- c onvi c t i on s t atut e s uc h a s §9 22 ( g) ( 9) al so is gen era lly p r o p e r .” M ajor ity O p . at 17
. T his statem en t is both un ne c es sary an d

— in th e con text of this case

— com p letely m isp la ce d
. C onnect i cutDepar t m entof Pu bl i c Saf

ety was a pro - (co n tin u ed ...) a r ecentdom est i c- vi ol ence re ci divi st cer tai nl y di m i n i shes th e force of his argu m en t abou t th e p erm an en t fe atu re o f§ 9 22 ( g ) ( 9) a s th e s tatut e ha s be ena ppl i ed to hi m . The cour t pr oper l y r ese rv es the quest i on wh etherappli cati o n o f§ 9 22 ( g ) ( 9) woul d s ur vi ve a S ec o nd Am en dm en t ch al l en g e by“ a m i sde m ea na ntwho ha s be enl aw abi di ng f o r a n e xt en d ed p er i o d. ” M aj o r i tyOp. a t 17
. S ti l l, Ithi nk it h igh ly in ap p ro p ria te f o r th e c ou rtto res olv e t h is c h all en g e to the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe s ta tu te wi th o utrequ ir i ng the gov er nm ent to shoul der i ts burden

— and gi vi ng S koi en th e o ppo r tu ni ty t o r es po nd

— on r em and i n the dist ri ct cour t. The so rto fem pir i cali nquir y no rm al l y r equi re d by i nter m edi ate scr uti ny sho uld notbe perform ed by the c ourto fappeal s in the fi rs t instance
. 17N o. 08

- 3770 37

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 17 ced u ral d u e-pr oce ss case inv olv ing a C o nn ecticu t statu te req u iring sex offen d ers to re g ister up on release an d p erio d ically up date the inf orm ati on requir ed b y the r egis tr y. 538 U.S
. at 5- 6. A cl as s ofr ec en t l y re l ea s ed offen der s b ro ughta pre - en f or c em en t c h a l l e n g e t o th e s t a t u t e a n d a r g u e d th a ta c o n t e mpo r ane ous he arin g on their p resen t d an g ero u sness w as ne cessary to sus tai n the r e gi s t r a t i onr e q ui r e m e nta s a m a t t e r o fpr oc e dur al d u e p ro c es s . The Su pre m e Cour ts um m ar i l y di s agr ee d, s ayi ng the offen der s ha d re c ei ved a ll the pr oc es s the y wer e due w h en th ey w er e c o n v ic te d o ft h e u n d er ly in g o ffen se . Id
. The Co nnecticu t s tatute did not “l im itw here se x offenders c an l i ve, ” an d the c as e does no tr em ot el y s uppor tthe pr opos i t i on thatunde r the Se c ond Am en dm en t, a “di s qua l i fi c at i on- onco n v ic tio n sta tu te su ch as § 9 2 2 (g )(9) . . . is g en er a lly p ro p er .” See, e . g. , V o lo k h, Imp l e me nt i ngt h e Rig h tTo Ke ep a ndBe a rAr ms 18 f or Sel f -Defe n se, sup ra , at 14 4 5 -7 2 ; L u n d , sup ra , at 1372- 75; W inkle r, sup ra , a t 1 5 7 2 -7 5 ; M a rk T u sh n et, Pe r mi s s i bl e Gun (co n tin u ed ...) The c o ur t th us s ho r t- ci r cui ts the us ua l pr o ce ss a nd re sol ves t h is c ase o n a r eco rd o fi ts own cr eat i on, pre m atu rely en d ing Skoien’ s c ha ll en ge an d l eavin g m arkers f orthe future that w i l l i m m unize m os t appli cati ons of § 9 22( g) ( 9) fro m se ri ous S eco nd A m endm ent s crutiny. Thi s appr o ac h is d if fi cul t to r ec o nc i l e wi the i th erthe r ea son in go r the r es ul t i n Heller, tho ugh i t m i ght b e th o ug ht co ns i st en t wi th an ag g r es si ve r ea di ng of th e Court’ s r efer ence to p re sum pti vel y l aw ful fi re ar m s r egul at i o ns . Ofc o ur se the re a r e se ve r alway s to unde r st an d th e Cou r t’ s an al y si s i n Helleri n l i ght o fi ts lim i ti ng di cta a b o ut exc e pt i o ns . Bu twe c a nn o tr e a d Heller’ s d ict a in 1838 N o. 08

- 3770

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 18 R egu l ati on s A

f te r H el le r : S pecu l ati on s A bou t M et hod a n d O u tcom es , 5 6 U C L A L . R EV . 1 4 2 5 , 1 4 2 6

- 3 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; L a w r e n c e B. S o l u m, D is tr ic t ofColum bia v. H el le r an d O riginalism , 103 N W . U. L. R EV . 9 2 3 , 97 2 -8 0 (20 0 9 ); L ev in so n, supr a note 4, at 3 2 2 -2 3; Pam el a S. K a rl a n, B u l l et s, B al l ots, and B att l es on th e R oberts C ou rt, 35 O HIO N. U. L. R EV . 4 4 5 , 4 5 2

- 5 6 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; Br a n n o n P
. De n n i n g & Gl e n n H. R ey n o ld s, Fi veTake s o n D is tr ic t of Co lum bia v. H el le r, 69 O HIO S T . L .J. 6 7 1 , 68 8 -9 9 (20 0 8 ); Su n ste in , su p ra note 5, at 267- 73; B rann on P . D en n in g , Th e Ne w Do c t r i na l i s m i n Co ns t i t ut i onal Schol arship and D is tr ic t ofColum bia v. H el le r, 75 T EN N . L. R EV . 78 9 , 79 7 -8 0 0 (20 0 8 ).

7- 13- 10 a w ay th at sw all ow s its h o ld ings. Th e govern m en t norm al l y has the burden ofj usti fyi ng the appli cat ion of l aws tha t cr i m i na li ze th e ex er ci se o fe numer at ed co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. W e s houl d fo l l ow that no rm , notpay l i p ser vi ce to i t. I w oul d r em and for the gov ernm en t to m ake i ts o w n case f ori m pri soni ng S tev en S koi en f or exer ci si ng hi s S eco nd A m endm ent r i ghts.