The Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit handed down an interesting ruling today. Steven Skoien was charged with possession of a firearm (a shotgun) after having been previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. He entered a guilty plea, but reserved his right to appeal on 2nd Amendment grounds. The court held that, since he based his appeal only on his right to hunt, the lower court should have applied intermediate scrutiny in determining whether the government had a proper interest in restricting his right. His conviction was overturned, and the case returned to the lower court for fact finding.
This seems encouraging for two reasons. First, the court is taking Heller seriously and demanding that the government establish a sound basis for laws and regulations (in this case, the Lautenberg Amendment) that infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. The second is the suggestion that while there is a protected right to hunt, it's of less importance than the right to self-defense, which might have demanded a higher level of scrutiny (i.e. strict scrutiny). Tough luck, Fudds.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/SP13Y3QQ.pdf
Ken
This seems encouraging for two reasons. First, the court is taking Heller seriously and demanding that the government establish a sound basis for laws and regulations (in this case, the Lautenberg Amendment) that infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. The second is the suggestion that while there is a protected right to hunt, it's of less importance than the right to self-defense, which might have demanded a higher level of scrutiny (i.e. strict scrutiny). Tough luck, Fudds.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/SP13Y3QQ.pdf
Ken