Oral Arguments Heard In Critical Second Amendment Case

Oral Arguments Heard In Critical Second Amendment Case For Which NRA Filed A Friend Of The Court Brief
Written by C D Michel


Chicago, IL –-(Ammoland.com)- The case, U.S. v. Skoien, addresses the standard of review to be applied when laws are challenged under the Second Amendment.

The NRA argued in its amicus brief that the highest standard, “strict scrutiny” test should apply, meaning that any gun-control law must address a compelling governmental interest, and any legislation enacted to address that interest must be narrowly tailored so as not to unnecessarily infringe on the right to keeps and bear arms.

The Skoien case challenges the constitutionality of 1996 Lautenberg Amendment on Second Amendment grounds. That Amendment prohibits anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms. Thousands of good people, including police and soldiers, have been deprived of their fundamental rights under this law; despite leading exemplary lives.

The original three judge panel of the Court of Appeals used intermediate scrutiny review (under which the government must establish only that the challenged law is substantially related to an important government interest) because Mr. Skoien only claimed the Amendment infringed on his right to hunt, rather than his right to self-defense. But the Court noted that strict scrutiny would apply when considering challenges to laws that infringe on the more fundamental right to self-defense. The Government requested that the Seventh Circuit’s en banc panel of judges review that decision by the three judge panel. This request was granted. Oral argument occurred on May 20, 2010.

The audio of the oral arguments can be heard here.

CalGunLaws.com is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. CalGunLaws.com is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information.

  • 8 thoughts on “Oral Arguments Heard In Critical Second Amendment Case

    1. Unfortunately, as clear as the original intention of the Bill of Rights was written, the nine justices who are sworn to properly interpret and uphold the original intent of the Constitution wield a big ax in allowing their political leanings and personal agendas to enter into their interpretations and persuasions. The 4 left-leaning justices would be happy to effectively set aside the original intention of these rights, especially the 2nd Amendment right, in corroboration with the left leaning president, who believes that the Constitution itself is a 'living document', meaning it is subject to change according to the whims of those who wield power over the people. This is just such a scenario that the founding fathers foresaw as the primary reason for putting common sense rights into writing, so as to guarantee that the people would have the means to protect and defend themselves from a ruling party that would effectively deprive them of their rights. It is a fearful thought indeed that we are just one appointment away from our Constitution being effectively re-written by a handful of left wing liberals who would happily deprive 300 million citizens of their long-standing rights.

    2. Hey Lee; the law ( Constitution and bill of rights ) are just that, rights, Politicians have been interpeting them since they were written for their various agenda's. It's simple, even the sleazyist lawyer knows ( won't admit it ) that the second amendment means exactly what it says. An American citizen can own a gun. Even the restrictions for crime and criminals are bogus. Criminals should be in jail or in the ground , therefore the ownership issue is moot. Once a criminal has served his time, his rights should be restored. If he continues criminal activity he should be permanently incarcerated or executed. Ownership is moot. All this other legal wiggling around to keep eating away at the rights shouls never been allowed. It all goes to personal responsibility. In light of all the unconstitutional restrictions on this right, I think the NRA is right to be so narrow. It takes the wiggle out of the issue. Especially the Lautenberg illegal law.

    3. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to our Constitution) were added when the founding fathers realized that the Colonies that were to become States of the Republic would not be ratified, that is signed as written. Massachusetts had a law in effect that prescribed a State Religion! Most Colonies did not want to give up their right to own firearms to ANYONE much less a President, King, Emperor or Premier. The amendments were compromises for the various States to be secure in signing a document to form a radical form of government. A non cleric friend once asked me what would happen IF everyone on the planet practiced the 10 Commandments regardless of religious convictions. I ask the same thing: What would happen if everyone alive in our Republic obeyed the letter of the 10 Amendments as intended by our Founding Fathers?

    4. It is clear the people don't seem to value their civil rights. As they keep electing people in to office that want to keep trying to do away with them. So I propose this. Just to see if anyone still values them. Take the entire bill of rights and place them on hold for one year. If there is a major outcry then they are important. If not then they really wern't. If they are valued then after that one year of no rights they will comprehend that if it is important they will fight for it and keep those that want to do away with them out of office.

      In short, you will never place an importance on things you take for granted that are important until the day comes along and you wake up to find them no longer there.

    5. MY argument here is simply this. Just what do we mean allowing trained liars to argue what something means when all is needed is to not interpret but to consider the law of the land in the context of the language it was written in (which is different), the times, the purpose as stated in the speeches and writings of the people who wrote this great document. In context, means a litteral view of exactly what is written. When you start giving the trained liars free means to twisting the meaning according to their agenda, you start changing the meaning of what is said. Shall not be infringed means simply you will not change the meaning to well maybe it can be infringed without the vote of the states which would then add an amendment to our greatest document. Send the trained liars to the firing squad where they belong.

    6. Every right has limits – my right to freely swing my fist ends at anothers nose. My right to free speech ends at slander or yelling fire when there isn't a fire. So the question in not whether or not there are limits but under what criteria those limits will be determined. The NRA is arguing for strict scutiny which is the legal framework that allows for the least limits on a right and holds the government and any legislation to the strictist scrutiny. We may not like that – but that is what is in our current legal system. So in this case the NRA is backing the right to keep and bear arms to the fullest extent – I don't and haven't always agreed with the NRA on many issues – but there is no fault on their part here.

    7. What side of the 2A does the NRA represent?

      The founding fathers studied every word of the 2A and their meanings in the law at the time of the writing of the 2A.

      Shall is a command, Not is a prohibition, Infringed in the law at the time of the writing of the 2A means trespass which is entry and transgress which is encroachment thus we have in the 2A [“a commanding prohibition against the entry and encroachment upon the Right to keep and bear arms”.]

      So what part of Shall not be infringed does the NRA not understand

    8. Boy, the NRA is great at using weasel-words: "so as not to UNNECESSARILY infringe (emphasis mine) on the right to keep and bear arms.

      The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention UNNECESSARILY infringe. But I suppose the NRA couldn't do much fundraising if they asked: How does the multitude of federal, state, and local firearms laws not violate the wording and intent of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

    Leave a Comment 8 Comments