Posted: 6/30/2026 12:28:40 PM EDT
|
CT's Grant v Higgins AWB case has been granted certiorari by SCOTUS and combined with the Viramontes v Cook County (IL) case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063026zor_3f14.pdf CERTIORARI GRANTED 25-238 ) VIRAMONTES, CUTBERTO, ET AL. V. COOK COUNTY, IL, ET AL. 25-566 ) GRANT, EDDIE, ET AL. V. HIGGINS, RONNELL, ET AL. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted as to the question presented by the petition in No. 25-238. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. |
|
Tong's office press release... Attorney General Statement on Supreme Court Certification in Challenge to Connecticut's Assault Weapon Ban (Hartford, CT) – Attorney General William Tong released the following statement regarding the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut’s post- Sandy Hook assault weapon ban. “Connecticut’s assault weapon ban is lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported. The gun lobby has flooded the courts in states across the country to get an assault weapons case up to this Supreme Court. We are prepared for this fight, and we are going to go in with everything we’ve got to keep these weapons of war off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our families,” said Attorney General Tong. Connecticut passed its assault weapons ban in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where a gunman armed with an AR-15 style rifle murdered 20 children and six educators in under five minutes. This law prohibits the sale and transfer of military-style assault weapons and is in line with several other states’ similar laws designed to protect public safety. Connecticut has successfully defended this assault weapon ban several times. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the law, recognizing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is “not unlimited.” It further recognized that Connecticut’s gun laws impose reasonable restrictions on unusually dangerous weapons “uniquely designed to create mayhem.” The decision also found Connecticut’s laws preserve numerous legal avenues for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and do not impair the core constitutional right to self-defense under the Second Amendment. The Court determined that Connecticut’s laws are entirely consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations. |
Joined:
Nov 2023
Posts:
262
EE: 0% (0)
CT, USA
|
Originally Posted By WoodBurner-CT: Have you seen the way decisions have been going over the past week? Might as well wish for a winning lotto ticket. 2 conservatives vs 7 libtards and fools. I find it highly unlikely that Thomas and Alito would have let this get cert if they didn’t have a slam dunk. Thomas is fucking fuming that states are ignoring Heller and Bruen and wants to break it off in their ass before he retires. |
|
I'm so used to getting my teeth kicked in when it comes to gun ownership but this time I feel like we will win. I can not wait to buy semi auto's that have been banned on some arbitrary list. I am setting aside funds every month so that july 2027 I can buy all the guns I missed out on since 1994. I love my AR15's but I'm ready for all the semi's on that list to come home. |
|
Here is the link to donate to the "Litigation Fund" for the CCDL. CCDL Litigation Fund Please note that the regular donations page on their site shows "operations" first, which is the website, emails, etc. and you need to scroll further to specify your donation is for legal challenges. Godspeed to us all, may we prevail. (P.S. No, I am not involved with CCDL any more than being on their blasted email list and finally contributing a few dollars today) |
LEGALIZE FREEDOM!
 MASSIVE BREAKING NEWS: SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERT IN AR-15 BAN CASE |
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: Tong's office press release... Attorney General Statement on Supreme Court Certification in Challenge to Connecticut's Assault Weapon Ban (Hartford, CT) Attorney General William Tong released the following statement regarding the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut's post- Sandy Hook assault weapon ban. "Connecticut's assault weapon ban is lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported. The gun lobby has flooded the courts in states across the country to get an assault weapons case up to this Supreme Court. We are prepared for this fight, and we are going to go in with everything we've got to keep these weapons of war off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our families," said Attorney General Tong. Connecticut passed its assault weapons ban in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where a gunman armed with an AR-15 style rifle murdered 20 children and six educators in under five minutes. This law prohibits the sale and transfer of military-style assault weapons and is in line with several other states' similar laws designed to protect public safety. Connecticut has successfully defended this assault weapon ban several times. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the law, recognizing that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "not unlimited." It further recognized that Connecticut's gun laws impose reasonable restrictions on unusually dangerous weapons "uniquely designed to create mayhem." The decision also found Connecticut's laws preserve numerous legal avenues for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and do not impair the core constitutional right to self-defense under the Second Amendment. The Court determined that Connecticut's laws are entirely consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations. S/H again? They always fall back on feelings, which has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights. Scumbags dancing on the graves of the children. In under five minutes? First officer there did not go into the building while the gunman was shooting it up. Instead, he waited. If some of those teachers were armed, or armed security was there, this would have not been. This has nothing to do with the firearms, though the person himself and law makers who left our children in a defenseless school. Making the public defenseless does not protect the children or the public. Lots of questions still need to be looked at on S/H, tong boy, which you guys turn away from. Jefferson said it best ""Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power, have in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny..." - T.Jefferson . They knew someday this might happen and right in front of our eyes, it's slowly happening. Matter of fact he even quoted Cesare Beccaria's 1764 essay On Crimes and Punishments, in one of his books "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." They even knew this then in 1764. Their illegal laws have totally infringed / burdened / restricted and impaired straight to the core of our Constitutional Right. They have hurt people, divided people, confused people (Connecticut doesn't even know what the laws, which they forcefully and illegally passed, mean) and got people falsely arrested and or got people killed; due to the People being divided, confused, and their lying. The Second Amendment is not what the government can tell us to own; it's telling the government what it cannot do. It does not grant us the Right to bear arms, this is inherent in The People, it specifically denies our own government the authority to infringe, burden, restrict on our Right to bear arms.... which Connecticut has heinously done and will vontinue to do so. The Constitution State, what a joke. |
|
Heller specifically says the government can not ban semi-auto pistols. Yet CT has a BS cruciform trigger bar law soon to take effect. What does that do? Hmm, ban certain semi-auto pistols! Why would a ruling on AR15s be different? Don't you think the assholes in Hartford will find a way to restart the judicial process? It was 1994 when the Clinton Crime Bill neutered the AR15. That sunsetted nationwide but CT continued it. Then more unconstitutional legislation was tacked on the citizens of CT. I am very concerned there will be some response in Hartford we will not appreciate. The fact that politicians can violate the US Constitution without consequence is very troubling. If they could be held accountable things would be very different. |
 GO F YOURSELF TONG!! #secondamendment #duet #helpmemakethismakesense #2astrong #gunrights |
|
Originally Posted By WoodBurner-CT: Have you seen the way decisions have been going over the past week? Might as well wish for a winning lotto ticket. 2 conservatives vs 7 libtards and fools. And those on the left are like wise saying there are 3 progressives and 6 conservatives based on some of their opinions. It's like this every year when opinions drop. Justices write opinions that have a habit of leaving one side or the other screaming that the court or specific justices are far right Nazi or far left Communist. The shitshow is what it is. |
|
Originally Posted By Blaster3094: I am very concerned there will be some response in Hartford we will not appreciate. It's pretty much a guarantee that CT Democrat legislators will propose more gun control to start to 2027 legislative session. Just like they did at the start of the 2026, 2025, 2024, 2023.... legislative sessions. No doubt the Bloomberg funded groups including CAGV and others are busy coming up with new proposed bills to hand to CT Democrat legislators. I will not be surprised if we see Lamont or top CT Democrat leaders call for an emergency session before the end of the year to demand CT Democrat legislators pass more gun control in retribution for SCOTUS granting cert on the Grant AWB challenge. |
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: It's pretty much a guarantee that CT Democrat legislators will propose more gun control to start to 2027 legislative session. Just like they did at the start of the 2026, 2025, 2024, 2023.... legislative sessions. No doubt the Bloomberg funded groups including CAGV and others are busy coming up with new proposed bills to hand to CT Democrat legislators. I will not be surprised if we see Lamont or top CT Democrat leaders call for an emergency session before the end of the year to demand CT Democrat legislators pass more gun control in retribution for SCOTUS granting cert on the Grant AWB challenge. Unfortunately I am hearing this is likely. They know they are going to lose so their strategy is to throw all the spaghetti they can at the wall now to kick the can as it is. |
|
What is this picture of?
|
https://youtu.be/oYr0Xl-YmNY SCOTUS Is About To Decide If States Can Ban Your AR-15 |
|
I see now. I agree with ya, I too fail to see the impact of these laws. Let's say 150 killed by firearms (using the 2021 stat). How many of that was gang related? How many of these were done by repeat criminals/felons? How many of that was suicide? How many of that was done by police? How many of that was done by people with and without permits? How many were in self defense? I'm not sure the FBI stat page would even know these questions, though I'm sure our state does. FOI anyone? Again, if 150 a year (taking the 2021 stat) out of 3.6 million people only relates to .0041% of the population. With this said, Connecticut is a very small state. They load Connecticut up with tons of firearm laws just to gloat, saying "see our firearm laws work" / "see firearm laws work". This is like saying "see we made laws saying trees must produce oxygen and its working!" Plus, them knowing The People of Connecticut don't have the money to fight these laws and will take YEARS to be heard, like we see now. When in reality if you look at the firearm death rates for Connecticut even back to 2009 there really aren't many firearm shooting deaths. Firearm shootings in Connecticut have always fluctuated though never reached chi'raq, new yorks, california, etc. numbers. In 2012 there were 112 (according to the FBI stat) firearm deaths and subtract for s/h would've been 85. We never had such a real issue until malloy shot down a mental health law, that would have probably helped this shooter and the mother; and then forcing these illegal laws into law. The shooters mother tried seeking help and got turned away or denied every time. Like I said before the s/h shooting is the fault of one person (not the firearm) and the law makers, who left our children in a defenseless school. The law makers made a "criminal". Using the devastated families to get what they wanted, to force their agenda. They manically focused the hurt families attention (using the families and everyone's emotions in state and country wide) on inanimate objects. Making themselves look like saviors and angles while dancing on the graves. Dividing a country and attacking Americans Rights. This is called sentimentalism. Not about the facts, it's about using feelings. This is not how laws are to be passed nor is it how law makers should do their job. Everyone who voted for these laws should / must be held accountable. No "we had to do something" response should get them off. This is not just about firearms too, though everything else in our country with the use of sentimentalism; this is for another thread. We see then in 2012 Table20/2012 then we see in 2013 Table20/2013 that rifles and even these so called "assault rifle" are very rarely used in Connecticut. You see in 2012 there was 27. Then in 2013 no rifles were used. Not because of the laws passed in early 2013, it's just the way Connecticut is. Just look at the other years. If people noticed our firearm deaths were low, still are competitively. Yet, imo, after these laws went into effect these deaths started to slowly rise. Seems to me it's proving these laws don't work. No law will work, for criminals will be criminals. Laws don't pertain to them, yet law makers make laws hindering, burdening, and infringing on the good People of Connecticut and their Rights. This is highly unfair and illegal. They should be toughening up the laws against criminals, not The People. |
|
It will be interesting to see what the CT communist party will do next session concerning gun control. Knowing them, they'll have an approach something like: Putting an extra $50 tax on every firearm purchase, 10 cent per round of ammunition, an annual $75 registration fee for every firearm, require annual "safety" inspections in every home with a firearm, only allowing slow fire at one round per three seconds, and ban any shooting on private property if there's a dwelling within two miles. They are going to go full commie. I could see this sparking something. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: They are going to go full commie. I could see this sparking something. Yes, they are likely to throw more stuff than usual against the wall this time around in the 2027 legislative session. Don't be surprised if Lamont and or CT Democrat legislative leaders call for an emergency session before 2027 to pass something, anything. They may end go that route before the November election. The anti gun groups, who dream up and write the bills that are then handed to the legislators to introduce, have an army of lawyers and gun haters sitting around dreaming up legislation. They are not stupid. They have LOTS of ideas. |
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: Yes, they are likely to throw more stuff than usual against the wall this time around...... On Independence Day and the 250th you're putting out this depressing shit. Wait until tomorrow!   Bluto's Big Speech - Animal House (9/10) Movie CLIP (1978) HD |
|
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: It will be interesting to see what the CT communist party will do next session concerning gun control. Knowing them, they'll have an approach something like: Putting an extra $50 tax on every firearm purchase, 10 cent per round of ammunition, an annual $75 registration fee for every firearm, require annual "safety" inspections in every home with a firearm, only allowing slow fire at one round per three seconds, and ban any shooting on private property if there's a dwelling within two miles. They are going to go full commie. I could see this sparking something. True, this will be like Bruen and Kathy Hochul; they're not going to go along with the spirit of the ruling. They'll come back with a death-by-papercut bill. At least it was the CT case that got taken up so it'll get directly overturned though, unlike some of the other states that will need to file new cases to have their laws changed using the new precedent. You just know CA for instance is going to drag this out for years. |
“Abdul, get the rocks.”
|
Originally Posted By sbhaven: Yes, they are likely to throw more stuff than usual against the wall this time around in the 2027 legislative session. Don't be surprised if Lamont and or CT Democrat legislative leaders call for an emergency session before 2027 to pass something, anything. They may end go that route before the November election. The anti gun groups, who dream up and write the bills that are then handed to the legislators to introduce, have an army of lawyers and gun haters sitting around dreaming up legislation. They are not stupid. They have LOTS of ideas. If I was a betting man I would say that it'll be something about creating firearm industry liability specifically around high capacity firearms. They've already figured out how to wedge into PLCAA using unfair trade and state-specific advertising laws. This is ultimately a massive setback for their team. They have to show they can still be effective in some way in order to keep the money flowing. |
“Abdul, get the rocks.”
|
Effective? How bout drawing up more stringent laws, and enforcing them - instead of using them for plea bargaining, against criminals and not the Constitution. Ya though that's silly to think of, for a party that wants to seize all power and get rid of anyone who disagrees with them. The demoKKK-rat party will keep pushing socialist and communist views, until they actually become the views they're pushing. |
|
Originally Posted By WoodBurner-CT: Have you seen the way decisions have been going over the past week? Might as well wish for a winning lotto ticket. 2 conservatives vs 7 libtards and fools. The gun cases, recently, have been 6-3 or better, on favorable rulings. I am sure that the liberal leaning justices will again argue against the text/history/tradition approach. My hope is that the more conservative wing of the Court will be able to convince (the more potentially swayable justices) to continue applying that approach.... (re- the case that you are referencing) Are you referring to the outcome of the birthright citizenship case (which was effectively 6-3, with the no votes split between two different dissents)? I believe that outcome was foreseeable, even given some of the political arguments from when the 14A was passed and is not representative of a large scale court flip. |