Circuit Court's Decision Clarifies Gun Law

(AP)  A federal appeals court upheld a ban on gun possession for a domestic violence offender in a ruling that several anti-violence advocates applauded Wednesday for providing some clarity after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark decision on gun restrictions.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled 10-1 on Tuesday to reinstate a southern Wisconsin man's conviction for having a gun while on probation for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. The decision followed the high court's ruling last month that made Chicago's outright handgun ban unenforceable. The court held that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The Wisconsin case was being closely watched by advocates of gun rights and domestic abuse victims, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. While the court signaled some gun restrictions may survive legal challenges, it offered assurances only on laws that bar felons from having guns.

"Even with the new definition of the Second Amendment, (Tuesday's ruling) shows that you can still have reasonable gun restrictions," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said of the appellate ruling. "This case really reaffirms that you can have limits."

But Herbert Titus, an attorney for Gun Owners of America, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the Wisconsin man, called the decision outrageous. He said the Supreme Court's ruling put the Second Amendment on par with the First Amendment, which can't be taken from someone.

"No one has said you lose your First Amendment rights if you violate some law," he said. "Why should we assume just because you violated some law, the government can take away your Second Amendment rights?"

The Wisconsin case involved Steven Skoien, who was convicted twice of misdemeanor domestic violence involving two different women.

While on probation, he was arrested in 2007 for gun possession, pleaded guilty the following year and was sentenced to two years in prison.

Late last year, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit overturned the conviction, arguing that the government had to better meet its burden before infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Then, in a rare move, the 7th Circuit agreed to rehear the case as a group.

Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook reasoned in Tuesday's 38-page ruling that if nonviolent felons cannot have guns under federal law, neither should a misdemeanor domestic violence convict, especially a repeat offender.

"Skoien is himself a recidivist, having been convicted twice of domestic battery ... Skoien was arrested for possessing multiple guns just one year after the second conviction - while he was still on probation," Easterbrook wrote in the opinion.

Messages left Wednesday for Skoien's attorneys were not immediately returned.

Some experts said Tuesday's ruling at least provided some clarity for what gun restrictions might be acceptable - if only for narrowly defined terms.

"This decision clarifies for the moment that people who are situated in that same situation as the plaintiff don't have an immediate Second Amendment claim," said Nicholas Johnson, professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York.

But the ruling left much in doubt, including whether a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence could earn back the right to carry guns.

"There will be time to consider that subject when it arises," Easterbrook wrote in his opinion.

Advocates for domestic violence victims called the ruling heartening.

"The presence of a gun in the home of an abused woman increases her risk of death many times over," said Tony Gibart, a policy coordinator with the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "It makes sense to restrict people who have domestic violence offenses from having a gun."

[dlknut]

Domestic Violence is wrong but there should be different levels of this. I have a friend who has domestic violence on his record, he loved hunting, but can't now. His wife could have easily had several Domestic charges against her, she was sleeping with several other men while they were married, but he lost it one night and hit her once. He knew he messed up and paid the price, but to take away someone's right to go hunting the rest of their life???? There has to be a little more common sense behind this law, he is not a threat of any kind, he would never shoot anyone!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG

[endurorob_5]

I am all for responsible citizens having the right to own weapons. But someone who has twice been convicted of domestic violance? I think not and anyone who thinks he should miantain the right to own a weapon is a fool.

[bingbong22]

What about the fact that most domestic disputes have two parties involved?? the police are pre-disposed to assume the man is the agressor. Any woman can say he hit me without proof and bang..there goes your rights out the window. The 40's and 50's were good era's @ least they knew their places back then, and men could still have guns.

[endurorob_5]

You are wrong. The police do not automatically assume the man is the agressor. You are also wrong in stating that without evidence you lose your rights.

[bajajohn1]

The 2nd Amendment is tied the language of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Too bad the Supreme Court puts politics ahead of a strict interpretatioin of the Constitution, like they claim they do. Basically, the majority is unfit to serve.

[choiceshaveconsequences]

That is why it is called an Amendment. As for "strict interpretation," a 5-4 decision tends to argue against the discovery of a clear pronouncement of the founding fathers. By your logic, the four were right and the five were wrong and we should not abide by majority rule, which is somehow a "strict interpretation" of how the Supreme Court should function.