U.S v. Skoien being heard en banc (7th Circuit)

[Nevermore]

Disclaimer: I first searched this board, the General Firearms Board, and the Lounge board for any references to 'Skoien' and 'en banc'.

It seems that U.S. v. Skoien is being heard en banc.

U.S. v. Skoien [PDF] is a case heard in the 7th Circuit last November, where a panel of judges struck down a section of federal law barring firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence charges.

In light of Heller, the court last November ruled that intermediate scrutiny applies when examining firearms regulations, since the Supreme Court had basically taken 'rational basis' (the 'can you come up with any reason, any reason whatsoever, that might logically apply) test off the table when it comes to restriction of the individual right to own firearms.

This was particularly interesting, given that this is the same Circuit that gave us the McDonald case, where the judges in that case said, "the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, because of these ancient Supreme Court cases". The panel of Skoien had effectively ruled otherwise. It'll be interesting to see what the en banc hearing does.

Background
You can skip this part if you're already familiar with the legal terms used.

en banc: This means a Circuit Court of Appeals will be re-hearing the case before the entire panel of judges for that Circuit. When a case comes before the Circuit Court, it is heard with a 3-judge panel. An en banc hearing can be requested by one of the parties, or in rare occasions, the judges can order an en banc hearing of their own accord, such as was recently done in the 9th Circuit for Nor****, another 2nd Amendment incorporation case.

You'll hear 'levels of scrutiny' when discussing Heller, McDonald, and other 2A-related cases as they come up through the courts. This refers to how much the government will have to prove that they really need a given law before the courts will decide to strike it down or leave it in place.

• Strict Scrutiny: The most stringent level of scrutiny, this usually applies to any rights covered by the Bill of Rights, or if it's a law targeted at any 'suspect class' (e.g. laws that deal with particular racial backgrounds, like the old Jim Crow laws). If there's even a whiff that the government can do something another way, or that it's targeting a particular group of people along racial, or religious lines (for example), the law's out.
• Intermediate Scrutiny: Less stringent than Strict Scrutiny, but more so than Rational basis. The government will need to show it has tailored a given law to a particular issue and that the law is directly related to remedying an issue. This is the level commonly used for sex-based regulations (laws that might affect mostly women, or mostly men.)
• Rational Basis Scrutiny: The least stringent level, the government only needs to show that a given law has a 'reasonable' relation to the item, group, or activities being regulated. So long as there's a general reason, a law can pass this level of review. By way of example: "We ban guns because it will reduce crime" passes the Rational Basis test.

Gura and the NRA are generally hoping for Strict Scrutiny in the McDonald case, arguing that all other fundamental rights fall under that level of review. The Brady Campaign, LCAV, CeaseFire, etc. are fighting a rearguard action to keep it as close to Rational Basis as possible. I guess we'll find out soon!

A final disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. My post here is based on my own studies and classes on Constitutional law and various Second Amendment cases and issues.

[Avi90]

So basically this Skoien case is examining the legality of barring criminals from their 2nd amendments rights?

This is quite interesting. I am taking Criminal Justice in college and we just started the law section of my firearms class today. I was told by my teacher "when you are done with this class, you will know more about Firearms laws in PA than most District Attorneys." lol.

We starting reading about the enumerated laws that limit/restrict gun ownership in PA.

I said "its funny no one convicted of a crime has tried to take this to the Supreme Court." Surely enough, I log onto PAFOA and see this.

Sure will be interesting to see what the court rules and if this goes any farther.

[IronSight]

If SCOTUS rules for anything other than strict scrutiny in 2nd amendment cases I'm gonna be more than a just a little pissed off; mainly because I know 90% of the people out there will be discussing the incorporation aspect alone and completely forgetting how important the level of scrutiny applied really is.

I'm very interested in the U.S. v. Skoien case as well so thanks to the OP for posting that.

[LittleRedToyota]

If SCOTUS rules for anything other than strict scrutiny in 2nd amendment cases I'm gonna be more than a just a little pissed off

me too.

the 2nd is the most clearly and forcefully worded rights protetion in the entire BoR. it would be logically inconsistent to the nth degree to apply strict scrutiny to any other right protected by the BoR, but not to the 2nd.

i still hold very little hope SCOTUS will actually rule that way, though. rather, i think, they will apply something out of their well-used "Handbook Of Intellectual Dishonesty"...or just keep avoiding the issue.

[Nevermore]

With all 14th Amendment cases, the Supreme Court needs to decide a level of scrutiny, because they must provide guidance to the lower courts (both federal and state) on how to interpret future second amendment cases. They managed to duck it in Heller, because no other jurisdictions other than D.C. were impacted. Cases like Skoien could have come up with varying results for years, were it not for McDonald. By forcing the issue early, the Supreme Court is also forced to lay down a clear rule about how strict this right should be interpreted instead of leaving it vague and unclear (as it is right now and will be until, likely, June.)