ILNews

Editorial: Hunt for victims' rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Here at the newspaper, we’re big fans of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. But we understand the need for and exuberance some individuals feel for the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What we as laypeople see there is a right to keep firearms for self-defense. The Second Amendment makes no mention of the right to keep a firearm for sportsmen to hunt deer, bears, turkeys, moose, or any wild animal that could possibly be in season anywhere in the United States.

The Brady Bill, in effect since 1994, outlines who may not own guns. Those who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor are among the individuals who are prohibited from owning or possessing guns.

But a case reheard en banc in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has the potential to change that. You can read about the case in this issue of Indiana Lawyer.

In United States of America v. Steven M. Skoien, Steven Skoien was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery in Wisconsin and sentenced to two years probation. As a probation condition, and because of the Brady disqualifier, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Probation officers learned Skoien had a deer-hunting license, which made them believe he might have a gun. Officers found a shotgun in Skoien’s pickup truck, and a dead deer in his garage. He told probation officers he used the shotgun to shoot the deer.

After a grand jury indicted him for having the gun, he moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming it violated his Second Amendment rights.

In his argument, he did not make the case he wanted a gun for self-defense, but did claim the Second Amendment protected his rights to have a gun for hunting. He also cited District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), in which the Supreme Court of the United States found it was lawful for citizens to own a gun for self-defense.

The 7th Circuit panel that decided the case in November said that the U.S. government didn’t make its case clear enough that Skoien should not have a gun for hunting. The court vacated Skoien’s conviction and remanded. A request for rehearing en banc followed, which the court heard May 20.

Domestic violence victim advocates are watching the case with heightened interest. Advocates tell us that they have witnessed instances of Indiana judges granting a protective order in one breath, while in the next breath refusing to take away the respondent’s firearms.

One such advocate told us for our news story, published in the May 13-25, 2010, issue of Indiana Lawyer, that she’s heard of people being granted protective orders, which fall under the Brady disqualifiers, only to have the judge granting the order ask whether he needed to restrict the respondent from having a gun during hunting season.

Seriously? What kind of logic goes into framing such a question? How can a judge in all seriousness grant a protective order one minute and then ask whether there is a need to prevent the person whom the order is against from having access to a gun for any purpose? Guns and protective orders often create more risk for victims, as the potential for lethal consequences goes up after an order is issued and the perpetrator has access to a gun.

We believe Mr. Skoien has the right to a fair trial. Once convicted of a domestic violence charge, we don’t believe he has a right to keep and bear arms. We believe he lost that right when he was convicted.

Perhaps Mr. Skoien needs to find a new hobby. And perhaps some judges need to spend more time being concerned about the victim’s right to safety than the perpetrator’s right to deadly weapons.•
 

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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT