## Facts

- Congress amended the Gun Control Act in 1996 to bar any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing firearms in or affecting interstate commerce.  
- The amendments also limited the government-issued firearm exemption so that domestic-violence misdemeanants could not possess even government-issued firearms.  
- The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) brought a facial constitutional challenge on behalf of members affected by the ban, including law-enforcement officers who required firearms for duty.  
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States.  
- A prior panel decision on appeal was vacated on rehearing, and the court issued a new opinion resolving the constitutional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether the firearm disability for domestic-violence misdemeanants, including denial of the government-issued firearm exemption, violates equal protection as applied through the Fifth Amendment.  
2. Whether the provisions violate the Tenth Amendment by impermissibly interfering with state and local control over law-enforcement employment.  
3. Whether the provisions exceed Congress’s Commerce Clause authority when applied to firearm possession that is otherwise intrastate.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.  
- The court held the domestic-violence misdemeanant firearm disability and the narrowed exemption survive rational-basis review under the Fifth Amendment.  
- The court held the law does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it regulates individuals and does not commandeer state governmental processes.  
- The court held the statute is within Congress’s commerce power because it applies only when the firearm has the required interstate-commerce nexus.

## Legal Principles

- Under rational-basis review, a statutory classification is valid if any reasonably conceivable facts could provide a rational basis; Congress may address a problem incrementally rather than comprehensively.  
- Treating domestic-violence misdemeanants differently from other groups (including other misdemeanants) is permissible where Congress could rationally view that category as presenting distinct firearm-related risks.  
- A generally applicable federal prohibition that directly regulates private individuals does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine merely because it incidentally affects a state’s options in staffing or arming employees.  
- A firearm-possession prohibition limited by an interstate-commerce jurisdictional element falls within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority when the firearm has traveled in or affects interstate commerce.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the federal firearm ban for domestic-violence misdemeanants and the denial of the government-issued firearm exemption, rejecting equal protection, Tenth Amendment, and Commerce Clause challenges and affirming judgment for the United States.


Fraternal Ord. of Police v. United States, 173 F.3d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1999)