Connecticut rights group appeals state's AWB to SCOTUS

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Gun-rights-group-appeals-ban-to-Supreme-Court-6824841.php
WASHINGTON — The leading opponents of Connecticut’s sweeping, post-Newtown gun laws appealed the state’s assault-weapons ban to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing that semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 are widely popular and well-suited to home defense.

Connecticut’s law “infringes upon rights guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitution,’’ said Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens’Defense League, the lead organization in the case. “Connecticut residents deserve to have these rights restored and protected by the Supreme Court.’’
Too bad this effort will fail.
 
Actually there was a decent chance of this. There has recently been a district split with the 4th Circuit in Maryland ruling that their AWB was illegal.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-court-guns-20160204-story.html

The 2nd Circuit ruled that CT's AWB was legal. (Shew v Malloy)

So now we have a Circuit split.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iHxC6E6l4iddqpsrtnAGfQ&bvm=bv.114195076,d.cWw

Meaning that in the 2nd district, AWBs are legal. And in the 4th district, AWBs are illegal.

This is just the kind of situation where the SCOTUS takes up cases.

UNTIL

Judge Alito died last night.

I was at the CT Hunting and Fishing show yesterday and spoke with some CCDL people, who are the ones bringing the case. None of us knew of Alito's death.
I'd love to be there today and talk about what they are going to do.

I think the answer is just wait. Its not clear if Obama is going to get to appoint a new justice, or if the Senate will force the issue to sit until a new president is elected. Or maybe if they will simply force the President, under threat of rejection, to nominate someone not so clearly left of center as Kagan or Sotomayor.

Remember, all of BHO's nominees have replaced left leaning judges. If he gets to replace Alito, he will be able to shift the balance of power on the court.

Heller and McDonald were both 5-4 decisions. If he gets to pick an anti-gun person, then it throws everything into doubt.

It will VERY VERY interesting to see what the Senate comes up with to either delay the appointment until after November or force Obama to appoint a centrist.

Don
 
Actually there was a decent chance of this. There has recently been a district split with the 4th Circuit in Maryland ruling that their AWB was illegal.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-court-guns-20160204-story.html

The 2nd Circuit ruled that CT's AWB was legal. (Shew v Malloy)

So now we have a Circuit split.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iHxC6E6l4iddqpsrtnAGfQ&bvm=bv.114195076,d.cWw

Meaning that in the 2nd district, AWBs are legal. And in the 4th district, AWBs are illegal.

This is just the kind of situation where the SCOTUS takes up cases.

UNTIL

Judge Alito died last night.

I was at the CT Hunting and Fishing show yesterday and spoke with some CCDL people, who are the ones bringing the case. None of us knew of Alito's death.
I'd love to be there today and talk about what they are going to do.

I think the answer is just wait. Its not clear if Obama is going to get to appoint a new justice, or if the Senate will force the issue to sit until a new president is elected. Or maybe if they will simply force the President, under threat of rejection, to nominate someone not so clearly left of center as Kagan or Sotomayor.

Remember, all of BHO's nominees have replaced left leaning judges. If he gets to replace Alito, he will be able to shift the balance of power on the court.

Heller and McDonald were both 5-4 decisions. If he gets to pick an anti-gun person, then it throws everything into doubt.

It will VERY VERY interesting to see what the Senate comes up with to either delay the appointment until after November or force Obama to appoint a centrist.

Don
don't kill Alito too.
 
You know Alito is alive & well right? Scalia passed.

Yes. Thanks. Brain fart. I still can remember when Scalia was nominated. My grandfather was beside himself. He said he'd never thought he'd live to see the day an Italian American was serving on the court. When Alito was approved by the senate about 10 years ago my Grandfather was over the moon.

Don
 
Yup, been worried how Scalia's death will impact the appeal. If the SCOTUS takes the case with 8 justices it will be a 4-4 tie and the AWB will not only stand it will be iron clad with a SCOTUS precedent. Hoping they don't take up any important cases like this until a replacement is in and hoping for no new justices until the next president and that it's not Bernie or Hitlery. Egads, why did he have to die now?!
 
While this attempt failed....

If The 9th circuit case of Miller V Becerra out of California makes it to SCOTUS and we get a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling. The it will with a few minor steps, overturn CT’s AWB as well.

So far the 2a cases in the 9th circuit are finding in our favor. Hopefully the trend will remain.
 
Actually there was a decent chance of this. There has recently been a district split with the 4th Circuit in Maryland ruling that their AWB was illegal.
Appeals court deals blow to Maryland gun control law

The 2nd Circuit ruled that CT's AWB was legal. (Shew v Malloy)

So now we have a Circuit split.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjgg967qffKAhVLWT4KHYomAT4QFggrMAM&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split&usg=AFQjCNHba8G-udjh-8HUG1QWUagJQL7mXg&sig2=iHxC6E6l4iddqpsrtnAGfQ&bvm=bv.114195076,d.cWw

Meaning that in the 2nd district, AWBs are legal. And in the 4th district, AWBs are illegal.

I'm afraid that's not correct. The Maryland ruling you cite was reversed by the 4th circuit sitting en banc and their AWB is intact as of this writing:

So right now, the major circuit split is between the 3rd circuit, which held that limitations on magazine size were constitutional and the 9th circuit, which, pending a possible en banc rehearing, has ruled that they are not.
 
I'm afraid that's not correct. The Maryland ruling you cite was reversed by the 4th circuit sitting en banc and their AWB is intact as of this writing:

So right now, the major circuit split is between the 3rd circuit, which held that limitations on magazine size were constitutional and the 9th circuit, which, pending a possible en banc rehearing, has ruled that they are not.

Duncan v Becerra is about magazines and could have an en Banc hearing. However Miller v Becerra is about an AWB, which currently sits at the district court level with St Benitez. So that case still has a ways to go before we get anything final. So St. Benitez has to rule on that first. Odds are he will give us a positive result. So still a 3 judge panel and 11 judge panel before Supreme Court. While Duncan v Becerra may have a positive effect on Miller v Becerra, the Duncan case in of itself won’t help the AWB’s. It will take a positive outcome of Miller’s case at the Supreme Court. Even then if other states refuse to change or update their laws after a SCOTUS ruling, it will take someone to file another case in federal courts to either enforce those states that refuse to change the laws, to change and/or enjoin the state from enforcement.

Needless to say, we are a minimum of 3-5 years from seeing any relief. To top it off, Biden may even issue an executive order to require the ATF to do an AWB as well. That will create another new case or two. The odds that the courts would issue an injunction against the ATF if extremely low. Depending on which circuit court the new case was filed in. Luckily there are some additional “causes” besides the 2a, 14th amendment. Their is the cause (which is successfully currently being used in the bump stock ban) that an AWB as well as Bump stock ban, is beyond the scope of the ATF in passing “laws” without the consent of congress.

This cause is being successful in fighting the bump stock ban, however now it’s being appealed to a 3 judge panel in the 5th circuit. So we will see. This case will be pursued to SCOTUS. Now if SCOTUS hears the case is another story.

SCOTUS DOES have a good reason to hear Duncan v Becerra, because of a circuit split between at least 3 circuits if not more. If the 9th circuit finds in our favor for Miller v Becerra, as well as Young v Hawaii, that will also create a circuit split.

So far (things could change) having Amy Barret now sitting on the Supreme Court, it’s so far in our favor. With time we will see.
 
I'm afraid that's not correct. The Maryland ruling you cite was reversed by the 4th circuit sitting en banc and their AWB is intact as of this writing:

So right now, the major circuit split is between the 3rd circuit, which held that limitations on magazine size were constitutional and the 9th circuit, which, pending a possible en banc rehearing, has ruled that they are not.

Actually it was 100% correct when I wrote it. 4 1/2 years ago!!! Ha.
 
Texas Grill - I haven't really seen any suits that took the angle that the bump stock ban has very little to do with the 2A. It has a everything to do with the 5A and the takings clause.

Here we have an example of a manufacturer going to the relevant regulatory agency and specifically asking for a judgement if a particular product was illegal. The manufacturer then brought that product to market after receiving approval from the relevant regulatory agency.

Then 8 years later that agency changes its mind, declares the item to be illegal, and tells all of the owners of this item that they need to either turn it in to law enforcement or destroy this item WITHOUT COMPENSATION. This is tyranny. Plain and simple. And its also clearly in violation of the takings clause of the constitution and all surrounding case law.

THIS is the winning angle. From this angle you might even get the ACLU on board.
 
Texas Grill - I haven't really seen any suits that took the angle that the bump stock ban has very little to do with the 2A. It has a everything to do with the 5A and the takings clause.

Here we have an example of a manufacturer going to the relevant regulatory agency and specifically asking for a judgement if a particular product was illegal. The manufacturer then brought that product to market after receiving approval from the relevant regulatory agency.

Then 8 years later that agency changes its mind, declares the item to be illegal, and tells all of the owners of this item that they need to either turn it in to law enforcement or destroy this item WITHOUT COMPENSATION. This is tyranny. Plain and simple. And its also clearly in violation of the takings clause of the constitution and all surrounding case law.

THIS is the winning angle. From this angle you might even get the ACLU on board.

The angle I was referring too, is the one taken in the federal courts here in Texas, started by a Texas Resident, in which that the ATF can’t take action to ban an item like a bump stock without action from congress. Meaning that congress has to pass a law to ban them, claiming the ATF doesn’t have the right to ban bump stocks.
 
This kind of activity is why I've been saying that Trump is a tyrant wanna be.

He is most offen a tyrant wanna be who is in our corner, but that doesn't change his tendencies.

Obama "discovered" bump stocks circa 2013. (shortly after Sandy Hook) He had his justice department look into banning them. Obama's very anti-gun justice dept and ATF determined that there was NOTHING they could do without a change to the law.

I spoke to both ATF and FBI at SHOT show in 2015 and both of them told me the same thing. "It won't happen, It can't happen". They both talked about how much the current administration wanted to ban them, but that there was nothing within the law that could be done.
 
Back
Top Bottom