PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 10-5071
RONALD MARK CHAPMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.
(3:10-cr-00034-1)
Argued: October 26, 2011
Decided: January 4, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Hamilton wrote
the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Diaz joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Richard W. Weston, WESTON LAW OFFICE,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephan Edward
Oestreicher, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS-
TICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Booth
2 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, Lisa G. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Hunting-
ton, West Virginia; Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral, Greg D. Andres, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Kevin R. Gingras, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
OPINION
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18 of the United States Code pro-
hibits a person who is subject to a domestic violence protec-
tive order issued under certain specified circumstances from,
inter alia, possessing a firearm or ammunition in or affecting
interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The sole issue
raised on appeal by Ronald Chapman (Chapman) is whether
his conviction on one count of violating § 922(g)(8) survives
his as-applied constitutional challenge under the Second
Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. II. For reasons that follow,
we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I
On December 28, 2009, police officers from the Milton,
West Virginia Police Department responded to a 911 dispatch
involving shots being fired at the residence of Chapman’s ex-
wife, where he had been living for approximately two months.
Minutes before the 911 dispatch, Chapman’s ex-wife had
found him in the master bedroom with a .45 caliber handgun.
Chapman informed her that he planned to kill himself. As
Chapman’s ex-wife attempted to wrestle the handgun away
from him, two shots were fired into the bedroom wall. Chap-
man then retrieved a shotgun from the closet, which Chap-
man’s ex-wife also wrestled away from him. Chapman then
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 3
picked up a .38 caliber revolver. At this point, Chapman’s ex-
wife fled to a neighbor’s residence across the street where she
made the 911 call. After Chapman’s ex-wife had fled her resi-
dence, Chapman fired a shot out of the master bedroom win-
dow in her direction.
Upon arriving at the scene, the officers surrounded the ex-
wife’s residence. After approximately ten minutes, the offi-
cers convinced Chapman to exit the residence. Upon exiting,
Chapman was placed under arrest on state charges of wanton
endangerment. These charges were later dismissed. The offi-
cers then entered the residence to ensure that no one else was
inside. Upon entry, the officers saw three firearms in plain
view. Chapman’s ex-wife then entered the residence and
aided the officers in finding three more firearms and 991
rounds of ammunition.
Chapman was subsequently indicted on one count of know-
ingly possessing six firearms and 991 cartridges of ammuni-
tion while simultaneously being subject to a domestic
violence protective order (DVPO), in violation of § 922(g)(8)
and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). With respect to the particulars of
Chapman’s DVPO, the indictment alleged that it: (1) was
issued after a hearing of which Chapman received actual
notice, and at which he had an opportunity to participate; (2)
restrained Chapman from abusing, harassing, stalking, or
threatening his intimate partner, or engaging in other conduct
that would place his intimate partner in reasonable fear of
bodily injury; (3) included a finding that Chapman represents
a credible threat to the physical safety of his intimate partner;
and (4) by its terms, explicitly prohibited the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against his intimate
partner that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily
injury.
The intimate partner Chapman’s DVPO sought to protect
was not Chapman’s ex-wife; rather, the DVPO sought to pro-
tect a woman with whom Chapman had been in a romantic
4 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
relationship for the immediately preceding approximately
three-and-one-half years. The DVPO reflects a judicial find-
ing that Chapman likely committed domestic abuse. The
DVPO was effective from November 3, 2009 until May 3,
2010, and expressly informed Chapman that he "shall not pos-
sess any firearms (even those for which [he] has a license to
posses) or ammunition while this protective order is in effect
as this may violate federal law." (J.A. 378).
Of relevance in the present appeal, Chapman subsequently
moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that
§ 922(g)(8), as applied to him, violated his right to bear arms
in his home for self-defense under the Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution. The government opposed
Chapman’s motion to dismiss. Both sides filed memorandums
in support of their respective positions, with the government
offering quotations and citations to scholarly social science
evidence in its filings. Chapman filed a response to the gov-
ernment’s memorandum in which he did not challenge the
validity of the government’s social science evidence.
The district court held a hearing on Chapman’s motion to
dismiss. The district court subsequently rejected Chapman’s
as-applied Second Amendment challenge and denied his
motion to dismiss his indictment. United States v. Chapman,
2010 WL 2403791 (S.D. W.Va. June 14, 2010).
Chapman subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty
to violation of §§ 922(g)(8) and 924(a)(2), as alleged in the
single-count indictment, pursuant to a plea agreement that
reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to dismiss his indictment with respect to his as-applied
Second Amendment challenge. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).
The district court sentenced Chapman to time served
(approximately six months) and two years of supervised
release. Chapman noted this timely appeal.
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 5
II
We review de novo the district court’s rejection of Chap-
man’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge to
§ 922(g)(8). See United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 171
(4th Cir. 2009) ("This court reviews a challenge to the consti-
tutionality of a federal statute de novo."), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1736 (2010).
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Mili-
tia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Const. Amend. II. As the Supreme Court held in District
of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, as provided in the Second
Amendment, is an individual right without regard to militia
service, id. at 595; the core right being "the right of law-
abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth
and home," id. at 635.
We analyze Chapman’s as-applied Second Amendment
challenge to § 922(g)(8) under a two-part approach. United
States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir. 2010). See also
United States v. Staten, No. 10-5318, 2011 WL 6016976, at
*3 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 2011) (applying Chester’s two-part
approach). The first part asks whether the challenged law
imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the
Second Amendment’s guarantee as historically understood.
Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. If the answer to this question is no,
that is the end of the matter. Id. If the answer is yes, then we
move on to consider the second part of the two-part approach,
which involves application of the appropriate form of means-
end scrutiny. Id.
Chapman takes the position that § 922(g)(8) imposes a bur-
den on conduct falling within the scope of the Second
Amendment’s guarantee as historically understood. The gov-
ernment takes the opposite position. We need not and do not
6 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
resolve this issue because, assuming arguendo that Chap-
man’s Second Amendment rights are intact and that he is enti-
tled to some measure of Second Amendment protection to
keep and possess firearms and ammunition in his home for
self-defense, our following analysis leads us to conclude that
intermediate scrutiny applies and § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and
(C)(ii), as-applied to Chapman, survives intermediate scrutiny.1
Cf. Staten, No. 10-5318, 2011 WL 6016976, at *5 (addressing
as-applied challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and not resolv-
ing whether § 922(g)(9) imposes a burden on conduct falling
within scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee as histor-
ically understood, because, assuming arguendo that it does,
government carried its burden of defending statute under
intermediate scrutiny).
Having arrived at the second part of the two-part approach,
Chapman contends that strict scrutiny is the appropriate form
of means-end scrutiny to test the constitutionality of
§ 922(g)(8). This is so, he argues, because his claim is within
the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding,
responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-
defense.
Relying upon our decision in Chester, 628 F.3d at 673, the
government urges us to hold that intermediate scrutiny is the
appropriate standard of scrutiny for Chapman and similarly
situated persons, which is also the level of scrutiny applied by
the district court below.2 In Chester, we held that intermediate
scrutiny was the appropriate standard to analyze the defen-
dant’s challenge to § 922(g)(9), which statute prohibits a per-
son who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
1
We will explain later in this opinion why Chapman’s Second Amend-
ment challenge must be limited to § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii). See
infra pp. 9-11.
2
Rational-basis review, which is the most lenient level of means-end
scrutiny, is inapplicable to review a law that burdens conduct protected
under the Second Amendment. Chester, 628 F.3d at 682.
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 7
domestic violence from possessing, shipping, or receiving a
firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce. In
so holding, we reasoned that, by virtue of his criminal history
as a domestic violence misdemeanant, Chester’s claim of the
right to possess a firearm in his home for the purpose self-
defense "[w]as not within the core right identified in
Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to pos-
sess and carry a weapon for self-defense . . . ." Id. at 682-83.
When faced with the choice between strict scrutiny and
intermediate scrutiny in the second part of the two-part
approach to analyzing a Second Amendment challenge to the
same statute that is at issue in the present appeal, i.e.,
§ 922(g)(8), the Tenth Circuit chose intermediate scrutiny. It
did so on the basis that § 922(g)(8), like § 922(g)(9), applies
only to a "narrow class[ ] of persons who, based on their past
behavior, are more likely to engage in domestic violence."
United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792, 802 (10th Cir. 2010).
Although not having the benefit of the Tenth Circuit’s deci-
sion in Reese, the district court in the present case held that
intermediate scrutiny applied based upon similar reasoning.
We agree with the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit in Reese
and the district court. Reese, 627 F.3d at 801–02. Chapman’s
claim is not within the core right identified in Heller—the
right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry
a weapon for self-defense. Assuming arguendo that Chapman
was a law-abiding citizen at the time he possessed the six fire-
arms and 991 cartridges of ammunition set forth in the indict-
ment, he was, without a doubt, not a responsible citizen by
virtue of: (1) a judicial finding that he likely committed
domestic abuse; (2) his engaging in behavior causing him to
be judicially prohibited for 180 days from using, attempting
to use, or threatening to use physical force against his intimate
partner that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily
injury; (3) his serious attempts at suicide using firearms in the
very home in which he claims to have possessed such fire-
arms for self-defense and his endangering the life of his ex-
8 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
wife in the process; and (4) his discharge of a firearm out of
the bedroom window in the direction of his ex-wife. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny is the appropri-
ate standard of scrutiny for Chapman and similarly situated
persons.
Under intermediate scrutiny, the government bears the bur-
den of establishing a reasonable fit between the challenged
statute and a substantial governmental objective.3 Chester,
628 F.3d at 683. See also Staten, 2011 WL 6016976, at *5.
Section 922(g)(8) was enacted in September 1994. Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L.
No. 103-322, § 110401(c), 108 Stat. 1796, 2014-2015, 2151
(1994). The government identifies reducing domestic gun vio-
lence as the substantial governmental objective of
§ 922(g)(8). Section 922(g)(8)’s legislative history is fully
consistent with this position. See Tom Lininger, A Better Way
to Disarm Batterers, 54 Hastings L.J. 525, 538-44 (2003)
(concluding legislative history of § 922(g)(8) indicates pas-
sage was in response to Congress’ concern about the great
dangers posed by firearms in the hands of domestic abusers
and "that, under present law, the possibility of disarming bat-
terers depended too much on the discretion of individual
judges and prosecutors; a uniformly enforced gun ban was
necessary to protect battered women and children"). Also,
common sense and case law fully support the government’s
position, which position Chapman does not dispute. See
Reese, 627 F.3d at 802 (holding that § 922(g)(8)’s objective,
as asserted by the government, of "keep[ing] firearms out of
3
We note that although our decision in Chester, 628 F.3d at 683, had
not yet issued at the time the district court denied Chapman’s motion to
dismiss his indictment based upon his as-applied Second Amendment
challenge to § 922(g)(8), the district court applied the materially same for-
mulation of intermediate scrutiny as we subsequently adopted in Chester.
Chapman, 2010 WL 2403791, at *8. After evaluating the government’s
evidence and Chapman’s responsive evidence, the district court found that
§ 922(g)(8) "is at least sufficiently tailored, in proportion to the govern-
ment’s compelling interest to pass intermediate scrutiny." Id.
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 9
the hands of people who have been judicially determined to
pose a credible threat to the physical safety of a family mem-
ber, or who have been ordered not to use, attempt to use, or
threaten to use physical force against an intimate partner or
child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily
injury," is an important one (internal quotation marks omit-
ted)). Cf. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 376
(1997) (referring to the "significant governmental interest in
public safety"); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 750
(1987) (observing "Government’s general interest in prevent-
ing crime is compelling"); Staten, 2011 WL 6016976, at *5
(holding that, based upon legislative history of § 922(g)(9),
common sense, and case law, government had carried its bur-
den of establishing that reducing domestic gun violence is a
substantial governmental objective). Based upon
§ 922(g)(8)’s legislative history, the relevant case law, and
common sense, we hold the government has carried its burden
of establishing that reducing domestic gun violence is a sub-
stantial governmental objective of § 922(g)(8).
This brings us to the reasonable fit inquiry. As we did when
recently considering the as-applied Second Amendment chal-
lenge to § 922(g)(9) in Staten, 2011 WL 6016976, at *6, we
begin our reasonable fit inquiry here by considering the pre-
cise contours of § 922(g)(8). Pursuant to § 922(g)(8),
[i]t shall be unlawful for any person— . . . who is
subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which
such person received actual notice, and at
which such person had an opportunity to
participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner
of such person or child of such intimate
partner or person, or engaging in other con-
10 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
duct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the part-
ner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person
represents a credible threat to the physical
safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against such intimate partner or child
that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury . . . .
***
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign com-
merce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any fire-
arm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or
ammunition which has been shipped or transported
in interstate or foreign commerce.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (emphasis added). For purposes of
§ 922(g)(8)(B), "[t]he term ‘intimate partner’ means, with
respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse
of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the
person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated
with the person." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32).
At this point, we must address the issue presented by
§ 922(g)(8)(C)’s disjunctive construction. Because Chap-
man’s Second Amendment challenge is an as-applied one, we
must determine to which statutory subsection Chapman
pleaded guilty—§ 922(g)(8)(C)(i) or § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). As is
required, Chapman’s indictment alleged conjunctively the dis-
junctive components of § 922(g)(8)(C). United States v. Vann,
660 F.3d 771, 774 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (per curiam for
en banc majority) ("[I]t is settled that a charging document
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 11
must allege conjunctively the disjunctive components of an
underlying statute."). However, when a defendant pleads
guilty to a formal charge in an indictment which alleges con-
junctively the disjunctive components of a statute, the rule is
that the defendant admits to the least serious of the disjunctive
statutory conduct. Id. at 775. We conclude the least serious of
the disjunctive statutory conduct set forth in § 922(g)(8)(C) is
found in § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). This is because § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)
establishes only indirectly the point that § 922(g)(8)(C)(i)
establishes directly; the point that a judicial officer has explic-
itly determined the defendant represents a credible threat to
the physical safety of his intimate partner, his child, or the
child of his intimate partner. In contrast, § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii)
establishes the same point by reasonable inference from the
fact that a defendant is subject to a DVPO that, "by its terms
explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use
of physical force against such intimate partner or child that
would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury . . . ." As
the Fifth Circuit concluded in United States v. Emerson, 270
F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), "Congress in enacting section
922(g)(8)(C)(ii) proceeded on the assumption that the laws of
the several states were such that court orders, issued after
notice and hearing, should not embrace the prohibitions of
paragraph (C)(ii) unless such either were not contested or evi-
dence credited by the court reflected a real threat or danger of
injury to the protected party by the party enjoined." Id. at 262.
Because § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is the least serious of the statutory
conduct set forth in § 922(g)(8)(C), in the present appeal, we
must decide whether § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B), and (C)(ii), as
applied to Chapman, survives intermediate scrutiny.
At this point, we must determine whether the government
has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between
§ 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii) and the substantial governmen-
tal objective of reducing domestic gun violence, keeping in
mind that the fit needs to be reasonable, but not perfect.
Staten, 2011 WL 6016976, at *6. This means that the govern-
ment is not required to prove that § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and
12 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
(C)(ii) is the least intrusive means of reducing domestic gun
violence or that there be no burden whatsoever on Chapman’s
assumed arguendo right under the Second Amendment to
keep and bear arms in his home for self-defense. Id.
Of critical importance to our reasonable fit analysis is the
fact that numerous features of § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii)
keep its prohibitory sweep exceedingly narrow. The first lim-
its its prohibitory sweep to persons under a DVPO then cur-
rently in force. See id. § 922(g)(8) ("[i]t shall be unlawful for
any person— . . . who is subject to a court order that—. . .")
(emphasis added). Chapman’s DVPO had a 180-day duration.
The second narrowing feature is found in § 922(g)(8)(A),
which requires the subject DVPO to have issued after a hear-
ing satisfying the fundamental requirements of procedural due
process. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339
U.S. 306, 313 (1950) ("[A]t a minimum [the Due Process
Clause] require[s] that deprivation of life, liberty or property
by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for
hearing appropriate to the nature of the case."). There is no
dispute that Chapman’s DVPO issued after a hearing of which
Chapman received actual notice, and at which he had an
opportunity to participate.
The third narrowing feature is found in § 922(g)(8)(B),
which limits the reach of § 922(g)(8) not only to the domestic
context (including containing the statutorily defined term "in-
timate partner"), but also limits its reach to a class of persons
who have been restrained "from harassing, stalking, or threat-
ening an intimate partner of such person or child of such inti-
mate partner or person, or engaging in conduct that would
place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury
to the partner or child . . . ." Id. § 922(g)(8)(B). Per Chap-
man’s guilty plea to the charge contained in the indictment,
Chapman admitted that his DVPO restrained him from harass-
ing, stalking, or threatening his intimate partner, or engaging
in other conduct that would place his intimate partner in rea-
sonable fear of bodily injury. See United States v. Gosselin
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 13
World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d 502, 515 (4th Cir. 2005)
(voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is admission of all
elements of a formal criminal charge).
The fourth and final narrowing feature of § 922(g)(8)(A)-
(B), and (C)(ii) is § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), which requires that the
subject DVPO "by its terms explicitly prohibit[ ] the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such
intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to
cause bodily injury . . . ." Id. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). Here, by his
guilty plea, Chapman admitted this element. Vann, 660 F.3d
at 774; Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., 411 F.3d at 515.
Mindful of § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii)’s exceedingly
narrow prohibitory sweep, we move on to evaluate the evi-
dence offered by the government in support of its reasonable
fit burden. In order to carry this burden, as it did in Staten,
"the government primarily relies upon empirical evidence gar-
nered from social science studies, the results of which and
conclusions drawn therefrom appear in scholarly social sci-
ence reports (also commonly referred to as articles)." 2011
WL 6016976, at *7. Not surprisingly, the government’s rea-
sonable fit proffer here faithfully tracks the one it made with
respect to § 922(g)(9) in Staten.
Because we have already set forth such evidence in detail
in Staten and found the government justified in relying upon
it to establish certain facts, 2011 WL 6016976, at **7-11, we
need not repeat that information here. Relying upon the social
science evidence as set forth and detailed in Staten, id., we
held "the government has established that: (1) domestic vio-
lence is a serious problem in the United States; (2) the rate of
recidivism among domestic violence misdemeanants is sub-
stantial; (3) the use of firearms in connection with domestic
violence is all too common; (4) the use of firearms in connec-
tion with domestic violence increases the risk of injury or
homicide during a domestic violence incident; and (5) the use
14 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
of firearms in connection with domestic violence often leads
to injury or homicide." Id. at *11.
Although Chapman had an opportunity below to contest the
validity of the government’s social science evidence, he did
not do so. Instead, he relied below and continues to rely on
appeal upon three of the same reports relied upon by the gov-
ernment in support of his position that § 922(g)(8) has not
been shown to reduce the rate of domestic violence. For
example, he relied upon one of these reports for the proposi-
tion that, in 2000, a total of 7.4 million assaults on intimate
partners occurred in the United States. See U.S. Dept. of Jus-
tice, National Institute of Justice, Patricia Tjaden and Nancy
Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate
Partner Violence: Findings From the National Violence
Against Women Survey, NCJ 181867 (July 2000), available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf. He relied
upon a second of these reports for the proposition that, in the
year 2000, 1,687 homicides occurred at the hands of intimate
partners in the United States. See U.S. Dept. of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Crime Data Brief, Callie Rennison, Intimate Partner Violence,
1993-2001, NCJ 197838 (February 2003), available at
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=197
838.
According to Chapman, taken together, these two reports
suggest the likelihood that 99.98% of domestic violence
assailants in a given year do not commit murder. Unfortu-
nately for Chapman, this point, which focuses only upon
homicides, does nothing to undercut the conclusion supported
by the government’s social science evidence "that the use of
firearms in connection with domestic violence is all too com-
mon, increases the risk of injury or homicide during domestic
violence, and often leads to injury or homicide." Staten, 2011
WL 6016976, at *10. Remembering that § 922(g)(8) was
enacted in September 1994, we also note that one of the
reports relied upon by Chapman for the proposition that
UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN 15
§ 922(g)(8) has not been shown to reduce the rate of domestic
violence, actually supports the opposite proposition by
explaining that the number of violent crimes by intimate part-
ners against males and females declined 42% and 49%
respectively between 1993 and 2001. Rennison, supra, at 1.
Chapman having cast no doubt on the government’s prof-
fered social science evidence and after reviewing it ourselves,
we again hold "the government has established that: (1)
domestic violence is a serious problem in the United States;
(2) the rate of recidivism among domestic violence misde-
meanants is substantial; (3) the use of firearms in connection
with domestic violence is all too common; (4) the use of fire-
arms in connection with domestic violence increases the risk
of injury or homicide during a domestic violence incident;
and (5) the use of firearms in connection with domestic vio-
lence often leads to injury or homicide." Staten, 2011 WL
6016976, at *11. Given these established facts, along with
logic and common sense, we are constrained to hold that the
government has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable
fit between the substantial governmental objective of reducing
domestic gun violence and keeping firearms out of the hands
of persons who are currently subject to a court order which:
(1) issued after a hearing satisfying the fundamental require-
ments of procedural due process; (2) restrains such person
from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of
such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or
engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate part-
ner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;
and (3) by its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury. See Reese, 627 F.3d at 803-04 (applying inter-
mediate scrutiny and rejecting Second Amendment challenge
to defendant’s conviction under § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B), and
(C)(ii)).
In so holding, we consider significant the fact that Congress
substantially tailored the reach of § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and
16 UNITED STATES v. CHAPMAN
(C)(ii) by limiting its application to the exact duration of the
DVPO at issue, which in Chapman’s case was only 180 days.
This construct is more than reasonable when one compares
the often life long firearm prohibition of § 922(g)(9) on
domestic violence misdemeanants with the temporally defi-
nite firearm prohibition of § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii).
Obviously, Congress reached the undeniably reasonable con-
clusion that the domestic violence danger presented by a per-
son who satisfies the elements of § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and
(C)(ii) as compared to a person who has been adjudicated
guilty of a domestic violence misdemeanor warrants far less
burden on his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
in defense of hearth and home. In other words, Congress tai-
lored § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii)’s firearm prohibition to
cover only the time period during which it deemed the per-
sons subject to it to be dangerous.
We also recognize that the prohibitory net cast by
§ 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii) may be somewhat over-
inclusive given that not every person who falls within in it
would misuse a firearm against his own child, an intimate
partner, or a child of such intimate partner, if permitted to
possess one. This point does not undermine the constitutional-
ity of § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and (C)(ii), however, because it
merely suggests that the fit is not a perfect one; a reasonable
fit is all that is required under intermediate scrutiny. Staten,
2011 WL 6016976, at *11.
For the reasons stated, we hold that § 922(g)(8)(A)-(B) and
(C)(ii), as applied to Chapman, satisfies the intermediate scru-
tiny standard in analyzing his Second Amendment challenge
to such statute. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the dis-
trict court.
AFFIRMED