This one?
en.wikipedia.org
Writing the February 2 opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge
Cory T. Wilson rejected the government's argument that Second Amendment applies only to "law abiding, respectable citizens," citing Justice
Amy Coney Barrett's dissent in
Kanter v. Barr, when she served as a judge on the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
[3][7] Justice Barrett argued, "
Founding era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," or impose any "virtue-based restrictions" on that right.
[3]
Judge Wilson then applied the historical tradition test articulated in
Bruen in considering whether the historical analogues put forward by the Justice Department were applicable to Section 922(g)(8).
[7] The Justice Department had submitted three categories of possible analogues: "(1) English and American laws...providing for the disarmament of 'dangerous' people, (2) English and American 'going armed' laws, and (3) colonial and early state surety laws".
[7] The February 2 opinion stated that the historical laws disarming "dangerous" classes of people were not similar to the modern law, because "The purpose of these 'dangerousness' laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another".
[9]
The revised March 2 opinion included an expanded concurrence from Judge
James C. Ho, arguing that "civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings – and issued without any actual threat of danger".
[6][10] Judge Wilson went further and argued that Section 922(g)(8) could even put victims of domestic violence "in greater danger than before",
[6] because they would be unable to defend themselves against their abusers with guns, if a judge had issued a "mutual" protective order.
[10]
