context: . Although briefly addressed by the Maryland Defendants, see Appellee's Br. at 16-17, our case law appears to consider these as two separate and independent inquiries for which a Second Amendment challenger must plead factual circumstances that remove the challenger's circumstances from the "realm of ordinary challenges." We have rejected challenges as being in the realm of ordinary challenges with respect to "in defense of hearth and home" on the basis that a "fear of being robbed ... is far too vague and unsubstantiated to remove [a] case from the typical felon in possession case."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 703 F.3d 246, 246
citation_a.parenthetical: rejecting desire to possess ammunition primarily for hunting purposes on the same basis
citation_a.sentence: Moore, 666 F.3d at 320; see Smoot, 690 F.3d at 222 (rejecting a desire to possess a weapon premised on a tip that "other people were looking for [the defendant]" on the same basis); see also Pruess, 703 F.3d at 246 (rejecting desire to possess ammunition primarily for hunting purposes on the same basis).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 690 F.3d 222, 222
citation_b.parenthetical: rejecting a desire to possess a weapon premised on a tip that "other people were looking for [the defendant]" on the same basis
citation_b.sentence: Moore, 666 F.3d at 320; see Smoot, 690 F.3d at 222 (rejecting a desire to possess a weapon premised on a tip that "other people were looking for [the defendant]" on the same basis); see also Pruess, 703 F.3d at 246 (rejecting desire to possess ammunition primarily for hunting purposes on the same basis).