Enos v. Holder, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1088

Plaintiffs are California misdemeanor DV offenders who allege CA law allows firearm possession but federal law bans it via 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
They seek declaratory relief and challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) under the Second Amendment.
Some plaintiffs previously obtained California record clearances (e.g., § 1203.4) and/or civil-rights restorations, but were denied firearm purchases after background checks.
The SAC names the United States as a defendant per 18 U.S.C. § 925A, and certain facial challenges to § 922(g)(9) and § 922(d)(9) were later dismissed.
The court grants the motion to dismiss, concluding the declaratory-relief claims fail and § 922(g)(9) is presumptively lawful under Heller, precluding a Second Amendment violation.
Dismissal is with prejudice and summary-judgment hearing is vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restoration of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)	Plaintiffs contend California restoration suffices as federal restoration.	Restoration must include core civil rights (vote, jury, office) and non-de minimis restoration; CA restoration of firearm rights alone is insufficient.	Plaintiffs fail to show restoration to possess firearms under § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii); declaratory-relief claims dismissed.
Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(9)	§ 922(g)(9) creates an unconstitutional lifetime ban without proper restoration or relief.	§ 922(g)(9) is presumptively lawful under Heller and valid as applied to DV misdemeanants.	§ 922(g)(9) is presumptively lawful and does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to plaintiffs; no viable as-applied or overbreadth claim.

United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirms presumptive lawfulness of § 922(g)(1) under Heller)
United States v. Brailey, 408 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2005) (restoration of civil rights typically involves core rights; firearm rights alone insufficent)
Jennings v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2007) (record clearance does not qualify as expungement under § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii))
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (S. Ct. 2008) (recognizes individual right to bear arms; discusses presumptively lawful regulations)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (extends Heller rights nationally)
United States v. White, 593 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2010) (treats § 922(g)(9) as presumptively lawful)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (illustrates state-law variability in restoration arguments post-Heller)
Smith v. United States, 742 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (pprocedures for restoration can justify continued prohibition; upholds § 922(g)(9))
Padilla v. Kentucky, — (2010) (relevance to counsel's duty on collateral consequences (discussed, not controlling here))