7th Circuit upholds gun ban for domestic violence offender

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Wisconsin man who pled guilty to possessing firearms after he was convicted of a domestic battery misdemeanor is not allowed to have those firearms, even though he argued they were used for hunting, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday following an en banc oral argument that took place May 20.

The latest opinion for United States of America v. Steven Skoien, No. 08-3770, appealed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, starts by stating that Steven Skoien had been found guilty of domestic violence misdemeanors on two separate occasions, and that he pled guilty to having guns even though he was not allowed to own them under the terms of his probation.

Statute 18 USC 922 (g) (9), which is a result of The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (often called the Brady Bill), defines who can or cannot have guns.

That statute includes 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.

In its Nov. 18, 2009, decision following a hearing in April 2009, the court vacated and remanded the District Court’s decision that he could not have a gun because of the past misdemeanor convictions, stating the U.S. government didn’t make a strong enough case for prohibiting Skoien from ever possessing firearms.

During the most recent hearing, one of the arguments made by the defense counsel was that the statute had only existed for about 15 years, and that it was weak because of how it was passed. During the argument, judges questioned why it mattered how a bill was passed as long as it was indeed passed and signed into law.

The defense also argued that those who are excluded from owning guns under the statute due to domestic violence misdemeanors would find it nearly impossible to again own guns.

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in the July 13 opinion, “… some categorical disqualifications are permissible: Congress is not limited to case-by-case exclusions of persons who have been shown to be untrustworthy with weapons, nor need these limits be established by evidence presented in court.”

The opinion also addressed that because Skoien had a history of recidivism for domestic violence misdemeanors, he was “poorly situated” to argue “the statute creates a lifetime ban for someone who does not pose any risk of further offenses.”

The opinion also stated that even though Skoien’s crimes were misdemeanors, they would be considered felonies if committed against a stranger, which was why the statute included domestic violence misdemeanants among those who could not own firearms.

“The belief underpinning §922(g)(9) is that people who have been convicted of violence once—toward a spouse, child, or domestic partner, no less—are likely to use violence again. That’s the justification for keeping firearms out of their hands, for guns are about five times more deadly than knives, given that an attack with some kind of weapon has occurred,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote.

Judge Diane S. Sykes, who was on the panel for the November decision along with Judges William J. Bauer and John Daniel Tinder, and wrote that majority opinion, dissented, writing the government should need to make a stronger case for imprisoning Steven Skoien for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence Legal Director Kerry Hyatt Blomquist previously told Indiana Lawyer she had followed this case because she knows of similar situations in Indiana courts where someone has been granted a protective order, which is included in the Brady disqualifiers, and then the judge questioned whether he needed to restrict the respondent from having a gun during hunting season.

She has also had clients where the victim had proof that even though the abuser was Brady disqualified, he still obtained a gun.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues