defendant’s "non-constitutional argument that § 922(g)(9) does not apply to him because his civil rights had been restored.’’ Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1131. Applying its prior decision in U.S. v. Brailey, 408 F.3d 609, 611-13 (9th Cir.2005), the court rejected the defendant's argument that his civil rights had been restored within the meaning of § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) when his ten-year ban on owning firearms under California state law expired. Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1131-33. 19 . In their supplemental brief, Defendants cite two federal district court cases for the proposition that the Lautenberg Amendment survives constitutional scrutiny even if the particular offender cannot satisfy any of the statutory exceptions in § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). See U.S. v. Smith, 742 F.Supp.2d 855, 869 (S.D.W.Va.2010) (<HOLDING>); Enos v. Holder, 855 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1098-1100
holding that such classifications are permissible only when suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest holding that unlawful possession of five firearms throughout a four to five month period established a behavior pattern of unlawfully possessing   firearms  that meets the same course of conduct requirement holding that children are often physically assaulted or witness violence against one of their parents and may suffer deep and lasting emotional harm from victimization and from exposure to family violence consequently a family law judge should take domestic violence into account when making an award of temporary eustodyt based upon a recognition that it is clear that where domestic violence is present it should be considered when determining parental fitness holding that even assuming the defendant is permanently barred from future firearms possession  922g9 is reasonably tailored to accomplish the governments compelling interest in preventing domestic violence misdemeanants from possessing guns holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling