http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Ruling-on-gun-ban-may-have-impact-on-Connecticut-540291.php
Ruling on gun ban may have impact on Connecticut assault weapons law
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense wherever they live has focused attention on whether Connecticut's landmark 1993 ban on assault-style weapons could be vulnerable to legal challenge.
The decision casts doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but also indicates that some limitations on Second Amendment rights might escape legal challenge. The 5-4 ruling, with liberals in the minority, was led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, whose decision sent the issue back to a lower federal appeals court.
Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee, said that in light of the high court's ruling Connecticut lawmakers will have to study the possible repercussions and may even rewrite the ban on such weapons as the MAC-10, TEC-9, Colt AR-15 and the Colt Sporter.
"It seems to represent a broad attack on states' rights," McDonald said in a phone interview.
But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who successfully defended the assault-weapon ban at the Superior Court and state Supreme Court level, issued a statement Monday indicating that he anticipates no immediate impact on Connecticut law. In July 1995, the state Supreme Court upheld the assault-weapon ban.
And the other co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee downplayed the likely impact of the ruling. Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven said Monday that since Connecticut doesn't have an outright ban, current law may stay in place.
"What today's decision says, basically, is you can't make it virtually impossible for private citizens to own guns," Lawlor said. "We in Connecticut don't ban guns. We adopt reasonable rules.
"People can argue about the assault-weapon ban, but there's a federal ban on machine guns and no one's argued that," he said, referring to the 1989 federal law outlawing AK-47s and Uzis.
McDonald predicted the Monday ruling will embolden gun-rights groups to challenge more local and state restrictions.
"It's an opportunistic effort by the right wing of the court to undermine responsible restrictions on gun ownership," he said. "It clearly is going to result in widespread litigation and likely efforts to roll back many of the more recent efforts by the state Legislature."
He said that since the high-court ruling sends the Chicago ban back to the courts, it will probably result in a great deal of confusion throughout the country.
"They haven't given clear parameters on what restrictions will be permitted under the ruling," McDonald said. "It looks like a badly fragmented court issued the opinion today. The conservative wing has cobbled together a bare minimum number of votes to reach consensus on this litigation."
"I think over the next several months we are going to have to review our current laws, particularly our assault weapon ban to determine whether it is jeopardized under this new decision and if it is, to proactively respond as quickly as possible to achieve the same result," McDonald said.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, in a joint statement Monday with Chris W. Cox, executive director, called the Supreme Court decision "a great moment" in American history and a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment right to bears arms.
"But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it," they said. "This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights."
Ruling on gun ban may have impact on Connecticut assault weapons law
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense wherever they live has focused attention on whether Connecticut's landmark 1993 ban on assault-style weapons could be vulnerable to legal challenge.
The decision casts doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but also indicates that some limitations on Second Amendment rights might escape legal challenge. The 5-4 ruling, with liberals in the minority, was led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, whose decision sent the issue back to a lower federal appeals court.
Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislative Judiciary Committee, said that in light of the high court's ruling Connecticut lawmakers will have to study the possible repercussions and may even rewrite the ban on such weapons as the MAC-10, TEC-9, Colt AR-15 and the Colt Sporter.
"It seems to represent a broad attack on states' rights," McDonald said in a phone interview.
But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who successfully defended the assault-weapon ban at the Superior Court and state Supreme Court level, issued a statement Monday indicating that he anticipates no immediate impact on Connecticut law. In July 1995, the state Supreme Court upheld the assault-weapon ban.
And the other co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee downplayed the likely impact of the ruling. Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven said Monday that since Connecticut doesn't have an outright ban, current law may stay in place.
"What today's decision says, basically, is you can't make it virtually impossible for private citizens to own guns," Lawlor said. "We in Connecticut don't ban guns. We adopt reasonable rules.
"People can argue about the assault-weapon ban, but there's a federal ban on machine guns and no one's argued that," he said, referring to the 1989 federal law outlawing AK-47s and Uzis.
McDonald predicted the Monday ruling will embolden gun-rights groups to challenge more local and state restrictions.
"It's an opportunistic effort by the right wing of the court to undermine responsible restrictions on gun ownership," he said. "It clearly is going to result in widespread litigation and likely efforts to roll back many of the more recent efforts by the state Legislature."
He said that since the high-court ruling sends the Chicago ban back to the courts, it will probably result in a great deal of confusion throughout the country.
"They haven't given clear parameters on what restrictions will be permitted under the ruling," McDonald said. "It looks like a badly fragmented court issued the opinion today. The conservative wing has cobbled together a bare minimum number of votes to reach consensus on this litigation."
"I think over the next several months we are going to have to review our current laws, particularly our assault weapon ban to determine whether it is jeopardized under this new decision and if it is, to proactively respond as quickly as possible to achieve the same result," McDonald said.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, in a joint statement Monday with Chris W. Cox, executive director, called the Supreme Court decision "a great moment" in American history and a reaffirmation of the Second Amendment right to bears arms.
"But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it," they said. "This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights."
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
