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.  Under strict scrutiny, to be constituional, a 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 the 1996 "Lautenberg Amendment" as an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  The Lautenberg Amendment prohibits anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms for life.  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 of the Lautenberg Amendment (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 right to keep and bear arms. The audio of the oral arguments can be heard here.