CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
TERRY LEE STIMMEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 15-4196
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:14-cv-02081—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2017
Decided and Filed: January 4, 2018
Before: BOGGS, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

Plaintiff Terry Lee Stimmel tried to purchase a firearm at a Walmart store in 2002. However, the store rejected Stimmel’s offer because a mandatory national background check revealed that he had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 1997 and federal law prohibits domestic violence misdemeanants from possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Thereafter, he unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and challenged the law in district court. Following the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, Stimmel appeals.

The gravamen of Stimmel’s appeal to this court is a question of first impression in our circuit: whether the firearm restriction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), unconstitutionally burdens his Second Amendment rights. We hold that it does not.

In affirming the district court, we join the growing consensus of our sister circuits that have unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the domestic violence misdemeanant restriction to firearms possession. Here, the record contains sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that disarming domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to the government’s compelling interest of preventing gun violence and, particularly, domestic gun violence. Because Stimmel’s conviction remains in effect, and he fails to rebut the government’s evidence that domestic violence misdemeanants pose a significant risk of future armed violence, we conclude that § 922(g)(9) survives intermediate scrutiny.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ALLIED CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF CINCINNATI,
Defendant-Appellant (16-4248), LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 265,
Intervenor-Appellant (16-4249).
   Nos. 16-4248/4249
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:14-cv-00450—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.
Argued: October 11, 2017
Decided and Filed: January 4, 2018v Before: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. The City of Cincinnati (“City”) and Laborers International Union of North America, Local 265 (“the Union”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Allied Construction Industries (“Allied Construction”), and the denial of the City’s and the Union’s motions for summary judgment. The district court held that three City ordinance provisions (“the Ordinance”) concerning bidder specifications for certain City projects were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). We hold that the City was acting as a market participant in enacting the Ordinance, and therefore these provisions are not preempted by ERISA. Accordingly, we reverse.