## Facts

- Rickey I. Kanter, a Wisconsin resident and business owner, pleaded guilty in 2011 to federal mail fraud for billing Medicare for noncompliant therapeutic shoes and inserts while representing they were Medicare-approved.
- Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and financial penalties; he served the sentence and paid the penalties.
- Because of his felony conviction, Kanter became barred from possessing firearms under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m).
- Kanter, describing himself as a nonviolent white-collar felon, sought to possess a firearm for lawful purposes including self-defense.
- Kanter filed an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal and state felon-dispossession laws; the district court applied intermediate scrutiny and upheld both statutes as applied to him.

## Issues

1. Whether a person convicted of a felony, including a nonviolent felony, may bring an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to federal and state felon-in-possession prohibitions.
2. If so, whether permanently disarming a nonviolent felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m) is substantially related to an important governmental interest under intermediate scrutiny.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the government and state officials.
- The court assumed without deciding that Kanter could bring an as-applied Second Amendment challenge and proceeded to means-end review.
- Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held the government met its burden to show the felon-dispossession laws are substantially related to the important interest in preventing gun violence and protecting public safety.
- The court upheld a categorical legislative approach that disarms all felons, including nonviolent felons, rather than requiring individualized judicial determinations of dangerousness.
- Judge Barrett dissented, reasoning that history supports disarming dangerous persons, not permanently disarming all felons regardless of dangerousness.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Seventh Circuit’s two-step Second Amendment framework, courts may assume coverage and proceed directly to means-end scrutiny where appropriate.
- Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to show the challenged regulation is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
- Preventing gun violence and protecting public safety are important governmental objectives supporting firearm restrictions.
- Legislatures may adopt categorical felon-dispossession rules, including for nonviolent felons, based on legislative judgments and empirical evidence about felons’ firearm-misuse risk; the Second Amendment does not require case-by-case dangerousness determinations for such bans.

## Conclusion

The court upheld federal and Wisconsin felon-in-possession prohibitions as applied to Kanter, concluding that categorical disarmament of felons, including nonviolent offenders, is substantially related to the government’s public-safety interest under intermediate scrutiny, notwithstanding the dissent’s view that only dangerous persons may be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.


Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019)