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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT