Summary Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-608.html
It's a question of statutory construction. Defendant was convicted of ordinary misdemeanor battery in 1994. The victim was his then-wife. Since it was ordinary battery, fact she was his wife was not an element of the offense. Ten years later he's busted for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Question: given its rather ambiguous wording, does Lautenburg require (1) that the person be convicted of an offense whose elements are threat or use of force, and against a domestic partner, or (2) that the person just be convicted of an offense whose element is threat or use of force, but in the federal case we'll prove it was in fact against a domestic partner.
Oral argument is Nov. 10.
UPDATE: the only question is the meaning of the statute -- constitutionality wasn't challenged. The petitioner's brief doesn't mention the Second Amendment (possibly it was written before Heller), but it might come up at argument. since statutes affecting constitutionally-protected conduct are often narrowly construed.
· Gun Control Act of 68: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/gun_control_act_of_68/index.php
FOR THE REAL DEAL: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/10/lautenburg_amen.php