1. Whether § 922(g)(9) runs afoul of the Second Amendment, facially and as-applied, where (a) ambiguous historical regulation of generalized "dangerousness" justifies the "why," (b) the relevant proxy for such "dangerousness" is a misdemeanor conviction categorically requiring no more than reckless non consensual touching to establish use of physical force as an element, and (c) the statute exacts the much greater burden than any referenced historical analogues in Rahimi by permanently disarming citizens who sustained such convictions.

2. Whether the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that Nutter's as applied challenge to § 922(g)(9) had been waived.

Whether a federal statute permanently disarming individuals with certain misdemeanor convictions violates the Second Amendment under the historical analogues test established in Rahimi