The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - U.S. v Skoien: A review standard for Heller?

RDak · November 19, 2009, 11:28 AM

Thanks for the link Tom. (I had forgotten that that case was appealed.)

First off, I'm baffled as to why Skoien did not argue for both hunting and self-defense purposes. (Maybe because his initial statement to the probation officer was he wanted the shotgun for hunting only?)

The 7th Circuit concluded the standard of review, after Heller, was strict scrutiny for self-defense purposes and intermediate scrutiny for, I assume, all other intended uses of firearms.

Both strict scrutiny and intermediate review, according to the 7th Circuit, shift the burden of proof to the government.

The government must now show that Skoien, convicted of a misdemeanor, should be prevented from ever owning a firearm based on concrete evidence that such a prohibition has a compelling benefit to society. (The case was remanded back to the District Court.)

VERY interesting decision. I recommend everyone read it.

I simply cannot believe the sea change that has occurred in the last one and one half year. I am one happy proponent of the 2nd Amendment.

November 19, 2009, 11:28 AM	#6
RDak Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 734	Thanks for the link Tom. (I had forgotten that that case was appealed.) First off, I'm baffled as to why Skoien did not argue for both hunting and self-defense purposes. (Maybe because his initial statement to the probation officer was he wanted the shotgun for hunting only?) The 7th Circuit concluded the standard of review, after Heller, was strict scrutiny for self-defense purposes and intermediate scrutiny for, I assume, all other intended uses of firearms. Both strict scrutiny and intermediate review, according to the 7th Circuit, shift the burden of proof to the government. The government must now show that Skoien, convicted of a misdemeanor, should be prevented from ever owning a firearm based on concrete evidence that such a prohibition has a compelling benefit to society. (The case was remanded back to the District Court.) VERY interesting decision. I recommend everyone read it. I simply cannot believe the sea change that has occurred in the last one and one half year. I am one happy proponent of the 2nd Amendment.