Appeals Court reinstates conviction of domestic abuser for firearm posession

[Pullo]

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

While on probation, the Janesville, Wis., man 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.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLeOS8ksXSkAVvcvPdE-V_GwNtBwD9GV5JOG0">Link

I can't quibble with this ruling, as it was quite specific in regards to this specific circumstances involved in this case.

[iamjoy]

1. It Does Kind of Make Sense

If some one shows a propensity to smack around their family members or significant other, they may not make the most responsible gun owners.

eh, I could be wrong. I'm no fan of guns anyway but also wary of people trying to infringe on other people's rights based on their own perceptions and preferences.

that sentence is probably provocative for folks on both sides of the issue.

[TPaine7]

4. Being no fan of guns while respecting rights is a perfectly legitimate position.

It's not provocative in the least, from where I stand.

If some one shows a propensity to smack around their family members or significant other, they may not make the most responsible gun owners.

True. And often times--as discussed in the opinion--the crime is billed as a "misdemeanor" to get the cooperation of the victim, not because of lack of severity.

My only concern is that the domestic violence be real (not like mothers accusing estranged (or ex) husbands of child molestation as vengeance for his cheating), and that the accused know the right he will lose for life if he pleads guilty or doesn't vigorously defend himself in court.

[TPaine7]

2. "I can't quibble with this ruling,"

Have you read the dissent? It accuses the court of not having done the "heavy lifting" that was required to make the ruling legitimate.

At least the ruling purports to treat the Second Amendment like other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure who's right.

[Pullo]

6. no I have not read the full decision

Just going by the overviews I've read, I'm OK with it. A convicted repeat domestic abuser still on probation gets busted for possessing multiple firearms and gets thrown in jail. Statistically, it been pretty well established that those who commit domestic violence are far more likely to become repeat offenders.

It basically just upholds the Lautenberg Amendment post McDonald.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Domestic battery should be at least a class D felony.

Problem solved. Lautenberg Amendment justifiable.

[TPaine7]

5. If you charge a felony, the victim often won't cooperate. Then you have nothing.

The opinion discusses that issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I don't buy it.

The victim doesn't know the difference between a misdemeanor or a felony at the time the Police are gathering statements.

It NEEDS to be a damn felony.

[TPaine7]

9. I've never researched this issue, I was relying on memory and the court.

(I know, I know.)

I thought that no matter what the victim said to the police in the investigation, it was basically worthless if she recanted or failed to back it up with testimony in court. And further, I believed that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a husband (or wife) to substantiate the police report.

I agree that domestic battery needs to be a felony in the sense that it fully justifies felony status.

[one-eyed fat man]

12. Lautenberg

The problem I have was the provision that made it retroactive. You have this quaint concept that "ex post facto" laws are are an anethema to American jurisprudence, then you get something like this.

When it comes to habitual wife beaters, you can make a pretty compelling case that they will keep on beating their wives until she leaves or he kills her. If she leaves, then he will hunt her down, kill her anyway and commit suicide. If the cases were all that clear cut, no problem. Domestic battery is a serious charge and ought to require some serious proof. It should not just come as a result of the neighbors calling about a screaming match between two obnoxious drunks and the cops deciding to take the male drunk to jail so the female drunk will quit shrieking.

On the other extreme, you have courts which routinely issue protective orders when a divorce proceeding is started regardless is there is any threat, ever been a history of threat. Or a vindictive spouse who makes an accusation that is without foundation and only for spite.

There was at least one case where a man's gun collection was surrendered at the beginning of a divorce proceeding and some several months later when the things were finalized only to discover they had been destroyed in the interim.

I think the court made a good call for this individual, but the dissent does raise good points.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. You have a funny idea of arguments.

My wife and I have disagreed. We've never once 'fought' in a way that could even be considered yelling.

So no, I have never committed misdemeanor domestic violence under any statute.

[TPaine7]

11. There are many cultures in which the vast majority of *WOMEN*

would lose their rights to arms forever if yelling is domestic violence and charges were brought and the law was enforced in each qualifying case. Even in cultures where yelling is not nearly universal, there are many couples who would be guilty of domestic violence.

I think that is a fair point. Domestic violence must be well and reasonably defined. A woman who has often yelled at her husband and been yelled at herself should not suddenly have an "abuse" case because a clever lawyer suggests a technically legal way to get the upper hand in divorce proceedings.