United States v. Skoien

Steven Skoien (defendant) was convicted of a domestic-battery misdemeanor after committing battery against his wife in 2003 and against his fiancé in 2006. In 2007, Skoien was charged by the United States (plaintiff) for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibited anyone convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor from possessing a firearm. Skoien was convicted and appealed. Skoien argued that § 922(g)(9) was unconstitutional because it violated his right to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Skoien relied on the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Court held that a law prohibiting handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment but clarified that the holding did not affect the longstanding prohibition on a felon’s right to possess a firearm. Skoien argued that because he was convicted of a misdemeanor offense and the firearm prohibition for domestic-violence misdemeanants was not longstanding, § 922(g)(9) did not comply with Heller. Additionally, Skoien argued that § 922(g)(9) was unconstitutional because it created a perpetual firearm ban. Skoien argued that, in creating a perpetual ban, Congress had overreached because as people age, their tendency to commit domestic violence decreases and because the ban prohibited older individuals who had not committed any further violent acts from obtaining firearms.