7th Circuit to rehear Second Amendment case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Advocates of domestic-violence victims and gun owners have their sights set on an upcoming oral argument at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The case of interest raises the issue of whether someone who has been convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor should be able to have a gun for hunting purposes.

In United States of America v. Steven M. Skoien, No. 08-3770, the 7th Circuit found in favor of the defendant-appellant Nov. 18, 2009, but will rehear the case en banc May 20.

Kerry Blomquist, legal director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said she is particularly concerned as the case relates to federal Brady disqualifications that apply to all people who are convicted of a misdemeanor domestic-violence charge.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, often called the Brady Bill, was signed in November 1993 and went into effect Feb. 28, 1994. It defines who can or cannot have guns. It was named for then-White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot March 30, 1981, when John Hinckley Jr. tried to kill President Ronald Reagan.

kerry blomquist Blomquist

The statute from that bill now prohibits gun ownership by, among others, anyone who has been convicted of a felony; those who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill, like Hinckley was; 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 the Skoien case, Steven Skoien had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery in Wisconsin and was sentenced to two years probation, according to the November opinion. As a condition of his probation, and because of the Brady disqualifier outlined in 18 USC 922 (g)(9), he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

A year later, probation agents learned he purchased a deer-hunting license, which led them to believe he might have bought a gun. They then found a shotgun in Skoien’s pickup truck, as well as other evidence he had been hunting with the gun, including a deer carcass in the garage. He admitted to having the gun and that he had used it 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 wrote in November that the U.S. government didn’t make its case clear enough that Skoien should not have a gun for hunting.

“No one questions the importance of the government’s interest in protecting against domestic-violence gun injury and death. The dispute here is about the fit between this important objective and § 922(g)(9)’s blanket ban on firearms possession by persons who have been convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor,” Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote.

“Under intermediate scrutiny, the government need not establish a close fit between the statute’s means and its end, but it must at least establish a reasonable fit. The government has done almost nothing to discharge this burden. Instead, it has premised its argument almost entirely on Heller’s reference to the presumptive validity of felon-dispossession laws and reasoned by analogy that § 922(g)(9) therefore passes constitutional muster. That’s not enough. Accordingly, we vacate Skoien’s conviction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Blomquist said she is paying attention to this because she has seen similar cases where someone has been granted a protective order, which is included in the Brady disqualifiers, and then has heard a judge question whether he needs to restrict the respondent from having a gun during hunting season.

She also has had cases where the victim has proof that even though the abuser is Brady disqualified, he has still obtained a gun. She couldn’t give any more information on the record at Indiana Lawyer deadline.

Marion Superior Judge David Certo, who handles domestic-violence cases involving protective orders and criminal cases of domestic battery, said there is no discretion involved when it comes to how he handles Brady disqualifiers.

david certo Certo

While he said he is a proponent of gun ownership – he has enjoyed target shooting since a young age and carries a handgun – he doesn’t see any gray areas when it comes to the federal statute.

He said there are certain triggers in the system that would automatically make someone Brady disqualified, and that it’s not up to individual judges in those cases that fall under 18 USC 922 (g).

One issue he has noticed in his court that concerns him on this issue, however, is that many of the parties don’t have attorneys and therefore haven’t received good legal advice.

“I will go out of my way to explain what the Brady disqualifiers mean, particularly in the civil protective-order setting. Most parties cannot be relied on to understand on their own that by having a protective order against them they cannot have a firearm,” he said.

He estimated he explains the Brady disqualifiers in at least half of his cases. He also said there was a new protective order guidebook that would be available later this summer that many hope will clarify various issues when it comes to orders.

The reason for the disqualifier, Judge Certo and Blomquist said, is that there is an increased risk of lethality in cases where domestic battery had taken place or a protective order had been filed when there is a gun available to the abuser.

Amici briefs have been filed in the Skoien case by the Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and the National Rifle Association of America Inc. Another amici brief was filed by multiple groups, led by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and endorsed by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Latino Peace Officers Association, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association.

In the brief filed by the Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, it was noted that because the statute regarding misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence had only been in effect since 1996, it was possible it could be overturned at some point.

That brief also claimed that the provision regarding misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence was part of a “back-room amendment to an omnibus emergency appropriations bill, and the statements, quoted by the government as if they constituted meaningful legislative history, were only personal statements of a New Jersey Senator who is notoriously anti-gun, who had ample reason to exaggerate the foundation for, and purpose of, the amendment.”

In the amici brief presented by domestic-violence victims’ advocates, led by the Brady Center, it stated, “The Second Amendment right recognized by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller protects ‘the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.’ 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821 (2008). It does not entitle domestic-violence abusers like Skoien to keep and bear arms for any purpose – arms that domestic abusers could, and often do, use to threaten, coerce, or injure their families. The history of the Second Amendment also refutes the expansive interpretation of the right advanced by Skoien.”

Blomquist said she’ll be paying close attention to the arguments and how the 7th Circuit rules on the decision en banc in the coming months.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.