636 F. App'x 695
7th Cir.2016Background
- Steven Baer, a former felon convicted of robbery (a violent felony), carrying a firearm, and possession of drug paraphernalia, sued the U.S. and Wisconsin attorneys general seeking declarations that the federal and Wisconsin felon‑in‑possession statutes are facially and as‑applied unconstitutional.
- Baer served his sentence (six years) and had been released for four years; he asserted rehabilitation, steady employment, homeownership, and a desire to possess a gun for home protection.
- The district court dismissed Baer’s complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that felon‑possession bans are constitutionally permissible.
- Baer appealed, challenging both the federal ban (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and the equivalent Wisconsin statute (Wis. Stat. § 941.29) under the Second Amendment and the state constitution.
- The district court declined to address Baer’s state‑law (Wisconsin constitution) claim; the Seventh Circuit inferred a discretionary refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and treated that dismissal as appropriate but requiring modification to be without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felon‑in‑possession bans are facially invalid under the Second Amendment | Baer: statute is facially overbroad because it bars rehabilitated felons who no longer pose a threat | Defs: categorical ban is presumptively valid and facial overbreadth is not a cognizable vehicle for Second Amendment claims | Held: Facial overbreadth challenge not available for Second Amendment claims; prior precedent forecloses facial challenge |
| Whether § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Baer | Baer: he is rehabilitated and no greater risk than average citizen; ban should not apply to him | Defs: robbery is a violent felony; statute valid as applied to violent felons and survives intermediate scrutiny | Held: As‑applied challenge fails because Baer’s violent‑felony conviction places him within the category the statute permissibly targets |
| Whether the state statute violates the federal Constitution beyond the federal ban | Baer: Wisconsin ban similarly burdens his rights | Defs: Wisconsin ban is functionally equivalent to federal ban and imposes no greater burden while federal ban applies | Held: Seventh Circuit’s analysis of § 922(g)(1) applies to the state law; no federal constitutional violation shown |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the state‑law claim | Baer: district court should have decided Wisconsin constitutional claim | Defs: district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction | Held: Declining supplemental jurisdiction was within district court discretion; dismissal should be without prejudice (modified on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms; some longstanding prohibitions presumptively lawful)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (felon ban presumptively valid; Congress not limited to case‑by‑case exclusions)
- United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (suggesting § 922(g)(1) might face an as‑applied challenge in narrow circumstances)
- United States v. Shields, 789 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2015) (statute survives intermediate scrutiny for violent felons)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (facial overbreadth doctrine and limits on facial challenges)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standards for facial challenges)