• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Judge: ct awb legal

"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, for the purposes of the court's inquiry here, Connecticut, in passing the legislation, has drawn reasonable inferences from substantial evidence."
Click to expand...
Great, so he applied rational basis and called it intermediate scrutiny.
 
dude **** that judge. he straight up admits it burdens our second amendment rights. but then i guess burden doesn't equate to infringing? ****ing **** man.
 
What's interesting is that they also found that the weapons are in 'common use', but apparently that isn't enough...
 
What is with their pre-occupation with semi-automatic guns? Why are ONLY semi-automatics considered "assault weapons?"

Like, the guy at the D.C. Navy yard, used a pump shotgun. Was he not able to kill 12 people??

What. The. ****?
 
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
Click to expand...

The gov doesn't care about our rights. Its not really news, Americans don't really seem to care. Did anyone else laugh when you read the part about them appealing the ruling? Maybe if we keep asking they will say yes!
 
you know what else i don't understand, why isn't section 15 of the state constitution mentioned at all.

"SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
 
The pumps come next.

StevieP said:
What is with their pre-occupation with semi-automatic guns? Why are ONLY semi-automatics considered "assault weapons?"

Like, the guy at the D.C. Navy yard, used a pump shotgun. Was he not able to kill 12 people??

What. The. ****?
Click to expand...
 
StevieP said:
What is with their pre-occupation with semi-automatic guns? Why are ONLY semi-automatics considered "assault weapons?"
Click to expand...
For the same reason there was pre-occupation with full auto back in 1934. The interdictionists will always be interested in prohibiting ownership of whatever is currently the most effective gun type. If semis are outlawed, they will be back in a decade or three to outlaw whatever boogiegun they can identify (sniper rifle, box magazines with over 5 rounds, bolt actions that do not require manually chambering each round; etc.)
 
I like the reason it doesn't matter that it burden's a constitutional right...governmental interest. Well no shit!

Guy basically said "yeah, its not right but...government lulz~!"
 
StevieP said:
What is with their pre-occupation with semi-automatic guns? Why are ONLY semi-automatics considered "assault weapons?"

Like, the guy at the D.C. Navy yard, used a pump shotgun. Was he not able to kill 12 people??

What. The. ****?
Click to expand...

Jesus, don't give them any ideas. Pretty soon we'll be limited to side by sides and a wheel guns. then any wheel gun with a more than 3 round cylinder will be an assault gun and we'll only be allowed to have single shot break action shotties.
 
And (once again) PUBLIC disclosure of ALL individuals and corporate officers information,including home addresses, of ANYONE receiving public money. Some of us are already subject to this. All pigs should be equal.
 
StevieP said:
SCOTUS appeal?
Click to expand...

Dangger said:
What's the next move from our side legally?
Click to expand...
^ The next would be an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Then a petition for either en banc review by the entire Second Circuit or SCOTUS.

shipwreck said:
you know what else i don't understand, why isn't section 15 of the state constitution mentioned at all.

"SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Click to expand...
This was a federal civil rights action. Actions regarding state laws and constitutions are not generally heard in federal court. It's that whole dual sovereignty thing we've got going.
 
shipwreck said:
dude **** that judge. he straight up admits it burdens our second amendment rights. but then i guess burden doesn't equate to infringing? ****ing **** man.
Click to expand...

He said burden, not infringe. I think on an appeal, the appellate court would have to determine how close those words are. I think the judge picked that word very carefully. I hope they appeal this.

Sent using Tapatalk.
 
boatman said:
He said burden, not infringe. I think on an appeal, the appellate court would have to determine how close those words are. I think the judge picked that word very carefully. I hope they appeal this.

Sent using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Only judges can go full-retard. It's their job.
 
Covello relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision, which found a local law banning handgun ownership in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects ownership of guns, such as handguns, that are "in common use," meaning that they are widely owned and legally used for purposes such as personal protection.

The Connecticut plaintiffs argued that assault weapons are commonly used, in the state and across the country, for hunting, sporting competitions and home protection. Common usage makes the weapons and widely owned large capacity magazines subject to Second Amendment protection, the plaintiffs argued.

The state, in its defense of the law, disputed the claim of widespread usage. Referring to Sandy Hook, it argued that the banned weapons and magazines present unjustifiable threats and that gun violence will decrease if both are outlawed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ARs aren't popular at all.

[rolleyes]
 
boatman said:
He said burden, not infringe. I think on an appeal, the appellate court would have to determine how close those words are. I think the judge picked that word very carefully. I hope they appeal this.

Sent using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but burden sounds worse than infringe.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
^ The next would be an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Then a petition for either en banc review by the entire Second Circuit or SCOTUS.

This was a federal civil rights action. Actions regarding state laws and constitutions are not generally heard in federal court. It's that whole dual sovereignty thing we've got going.
Click to expand...

Any predictions on it going to the next step?
 
When the Three-branchs are in collusion and Check and Balance system is moot, the Framers gave the people EXPLICIT power to overthrow it with whatever means necessary. That is what the 2nd Amendment means.
 
In defending the ban, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen argued that handguns and rifles on the state's list of banned assault weapons were designed for killing people and should not be generally owned and used.
Click to expand...

The reason they don't want people to have them, is the reason they may be needed..... just saying....
 
PaulD said:
Any predictions on it going to the next step?
Click to expand...

I have zero knowledge of this case. I don't know any of the parties and haven't read any of the pleadings. So, I'm not even sure if it was a 'good' challenge to begin with.

That said, they'd be foolish not to appeal. You don't going stirring a pot like this if you're not prepared see it all the way through. The plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that had they won the state would absolutely have appealed. You don't plan the case for district court, you plan for the circuit.

Based upon what was report, I'm most troubled by the free pass that keeps being given to the government in the cases. At some point the courts are going to have to deal with the scrutiny aspect of these challenges.

ETA: I recapped the decision if anyone cares to read it.
 
Last edited:
StevieP said:
What is with their pre-occupation with semi-automatic guns? Why are ONLY semi-automatics considered "assault weapons?"

Like, the guy at the D.C. Navy yard, used a pump shotgun. Was he not able to kill 12 people??

What. The. ****?
Click to expand...

And he cut the stock / barrel+ disassembled it to sneak it in. Oh the horror of a semi auto rifle. SIP!

Seriously. CT is ****ed. And it's sad. But it's good to see another state like CA go to shit. One step closer.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I have zero knowledge of this case. I don't know any of the parties and haven't read any of the pleadings. So, I'm not even sure if it was a 'good' challenge to begin with.

That said, they'd be foolish not to appeal. You don't going stirring a pot like this if you're not prepared see it all the way through. The plaintiffs knew, or should have known, that had they won the state would absolutely have appealed. You don't plan the case for district court, you plan for the circuit.

Based upon what was report, I'm most troubled by the free pass that keeps being given to the government in the cases. At some point the courts are going to have to deal with the scrutiny aspect of these challenges.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding the appeal. Hell, even I know an appeal is a foregone conclusion. I hope they step up their game though because this could be very important (striking down an AWB in two states).

And yes, the free pass is BS.
 

Similar threads

VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
168
Reptile
Reptile
A conservative judge cant be that stupid.
Replies
27
Views
663
BigTimber
BigTimber
District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Kurtz
Kurtz
Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
528
1919FAN
1919FAN
Nashville School Shooting: Federal Judge Orders Release of Transgender Shooter’s Journals
Replies
7
Views
245
bejay
B
Back
Top Bottom