Seventh Circuit sez: Second Amendment individual rights get intermediate scrutiny!
I found this on another site.
From the wise and venerable Seventh Circuit panel of William Bauer, John Tinder, and Diane Sykes, this lovely little nugget of Second Amendment jurisprudence!
Steven Skoien was accused of possessing a shotgun after having been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
He appealed his conviction, arguing that the Second Amendment gives him the right to possess firearms, and a law that imposes a lifetime ban against the exercise of a constitutional right isn't proportional.
The Seventh Circuit agreed, holding that this law burdening the right o possess firearms should be analyzed under the intermediate scrutiny standard: Quote: The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. Although Heller did not settle on a standard of review, it plainly ruled out the deferential rational basis test; this leaves either strict scrutiny or some form of “intermediate” review. . . . ...we conclude that intermediate scrutiny applies to Skoien’s Second Amendment challenge to this § 922(g)(9) prosecution. The government has the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between its important interest in reducing domestic gun violence and the means chosen to advance that interest—§ 922(g)(9)’s total disarmament of domestic-violence misdemeanants. Accordingly, we vacate Skoien’s conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If the government successfully discharges its burden, the district court shall reinstate Skoien’s conviction.
Seems very reasonable to me.
Hardly seems like a gun take away to me. Sounds like wise and thoughtful application of the Second Amendment to me.
Who would have thought, especially on Obama's watch.