Noting the Second Amendment dogs that did not bark in Hayes

Now available via SSRN is this effective little piece of student scholarship commenting on the Supreme Court’s work last month in US v. Hayes upholding a gun possession conviction for a misdemeanant.  The piece is is titled “To Heller and Back: Why Many Second Amendment Questions Remain Unanswered After United States v. Hayes,” and here is the abstract:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms.  More recently, in United States v. Hayes, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute which criminalizes the possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses.  This essay argues that the Hayes decision cannot be squared with the individual right to keep and bear arms enunciated in Heller.

Some related Second Amendment posts:

• SCOTUS undercuts constitutional gun rights in Hayes without even mentioning Heller or Second Amendment
• Even the Chief and Justice Scalia are content to damn gun possession with faint praise
• Given Hayes, can jurisdictions criminalize gun possession by any misdemeanant?
• Justice Scalia sells out felon gun rights, but on what basis exactly?
• The lack of originalist justification for excluding felons from the Second Amendment
• Assailing the unjustified Second Amendment limits in Heller
• “Why Can’t Martha Stewart Have a Gun?”
• What might 2009 have in store for . . . Second Amendment jurisprudence?