ILNews

7th Circuit rehears Second Amendment case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges in Chicago didn’t take the issue of Second Amendment rights lightly when they heard oral arguments en banc Thursday for United States of America v. Steven M. Skoien, No. 08-3770.

That case, which a 7th Circuit panel first heard April 6, 2009, and decided Nov. 18, involved Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man who had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence charges and admitted he had used a hunting rifle to kill a deer. He was prohibited from owning a gun as a condition of his probation for his domestic violence misdemeanor conviction.

At issue in the argument was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, often called the Brady Bill, which states that gun ownership is prohibited for, among others, anyone who has been convicted of a felony; those who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill; someone who has had a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence where the defendant was an intimate partner, parent, guardian, or someone who had a child with the victim; and those who are subject to a protective order.

Skoien’s attorney, Michael W. Lieberman of the Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin Inc., started his argument by saying that “the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental individual right,” referring to the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

But one of the judges quickly cut him off, saying it’s not that the 7th Circuit doesn’t respect the Heller decision, but “to say the Second Amendment creates an individual right, that seems to say that is the beginning of the conversation not the end.”

Another judge then asked Lieberman if the Second Amendment should also apply to 3-year-olds and the mentally ill. He agreed that the amendment shouldn’t apply to children, and that the Founding Fathers didn’t consider the rights of children when drafting the amendment. But Lieberman did say the line gets “fuzzy” when it comes to who could or couldn’t own a firearm in terms of adults who can own firearms.

Judges also asked him if he thought that convicted felons also shouldn’t lose civil liberties other than Second Amendment rights, such as the right to vote. One judge asked if Lieberman thought there was a constitutional difference between convicts losing their Second Amendment rights and the widely accepted laws that take away a convict’s right to vote – whether it’s a felon or misdemeanant, depending on the state.

Lieberman said he wasn’t sure there was a difference, and emphasized that his client was not a felon, and that a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence wasn’t enough of a reason for him to lose his Second Amendment rights indefinitely.

The court then responded that there were scenarios where a convicted felon or misdemeanant could restore his Second Amendment rights, such as expungement or pardon. The court added that they weren’t there to weigh the possibility of a scenario where rights would be restored, but stated the possibility was there.

The time frame for how long a convict loses his Second Amendment rights was also addressed when Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben argued on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice.

When a judge asked him if there could or should be a state law that would limit how long someone’s Second Amendment rights were taken away, he said that in Nevada and California there were similar laws that allowed someone to reinstate his or her rights, depending on various factors.

But, Dreeben added, even if Wisconsin passed such a law “tomorrow,” as one judge asked, Skoien would not be a good candidate to get his rights back under such a law, considering his history of recidivism when it comes to domestic violence convictions.

In his arguments, Dreeben also argued that Congress added domestic violence misdemeanors to the list of those prohibited from having a gun under the Brady Bill as a response to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. That act, he said, sent a message that even if crimes against women, such as domestic violence, aren’t considered a felony in all jurisdictions, it is something that is not to be taken lightly by the community, including judges.

He also responded to Lieberman’s arguments that taking a gun away from someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor doesn’t necessarily reduce the risk of a domestic homicide according to statistics Lieberman cited in his briefs.

“Guns, which are valuable for self defense, are for the same reasons very threatening when placed in the hands of people who are dangerous with them,” Dreeben said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT