Good.

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1615861710455177217

Rob Romano

Nastri v. Dykes (D. CT): Lawsuit filed challenging Connecticut's state park carry ban.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.152669/gov.uscourts.ctd.152669.1.0.pdf









*** 07/12/23 Update ***
Judge dismisses case on lack of standing grounds. Basically says you have to get arrested in order to challenge the ban because the law is not enforced.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's ban on carrying handguns for self-defense in state parks and forests today because "there is no evidence in the record of any instance in which the law has ever been enforced." https://t.co/n6oxVf0sxF pic.twitter.com/UAW8Y6XXrB

Firearms Policy Coalition  (@gunpolicy) July 12, 2023

Firearms Policy Coalition
@gunpolicy
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's ban on carrying handguns for self-defense in state parks and forests today because "there is no evidence in the record of any instance in which the law has ever been enforced."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.152669/gov.uscourts.ctd.152669.46.0.pdf

@sbhaven That's how you post info! Thx

This law never made sense. It's public space and you can carry a gun to hunt in it, but you shouldn't be able to carry to protect yourself?

About time. Why keep introducing bills that will never make it.  Sue them for anything and everything.

It's a great start. Hopefully, this will be successful. It is also hopeful that this will be followed by lawsuits against numerous CT towns as well for their restrictions.

Judge to rule on if guns can be brought into Connecticut state parks for self-defense

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's ban on carrying handguns for self-defense in state parks and forests today because "there is no evidence in the record of any instance in which the law has ever been enforced." https://t.co/n6oxVf0sxF pic.twitter.com/UAW8Y6XXrB

Firearms Policy Coalition  (@gunpolicy) July 12, 2023

Firearms Policy Coalition
@gunpolicy
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's ban on carrying handguns for self-defense in state parks and forests today because "there is no evidence in the record of any instance in which the law has ever been enforced."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.152669/gov.uscourts.ctd.152669.46.0.pdf

Uhhhh...

That's not how this works.

so if the law is not being enforced why let the law stand in the first place?  definitely a contender for clown of the year award.

since the judge said its not enforced, does that give a green light?

what happens now?
how the fuck can they just dismiss stuff? this shit confuses the hell out of me. just like the august 1st deadline...

Because it involves guns. I doubt this judge would have let a law involving some other issue like abortion, voting, racists laws, or alternative lifestyle laws stand the way they're leaving this one stand.

So we now have a situation where there is a law on the books. The law is practically never enforced, but is there there where it could be enforced. Democrat politicians block any legislative attempt to remove the law. And a judge tosses a challenge to the law indicating you cannot challenge and remove the law until someone has been charged with violating that law. Fucking clown world.

Hopefully the dismissal will be appealed if can be.

https://atkinsonlawfirm.com/nastri-v-dykes-dismissed-what-happened-and-whats-next/

Nastri v. Dykes Dismissed: What Happened And What’s Next?
July 12, 2023
As many of you may be aware, Atkinson Law proudly represents David Nastri – a Cheshire attorney and financial advisor – in a challenge to Connecticut’s ban on carrying handguns for self-defense in its state parks and forests. The federal district court hearing Nastri’s case entered an order dismissing the case on July 12, 2023, claiming that Nastri lacked standing to bring his claims. Atkinson Law immediately filed a notice of appeal, and it will move quickly to protect Nastri and every similarly situated Connecticut citizen’s Second Amendment rights using all legal tools at its disposal.

Attorney Cameron Atkinson explains what happened and what’s next below:

The district court dismissed Mr. Nastri’s case for an alleged lack of standing. In doing so, it disregarded multiple U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate precedents and invented an unprecedented legal fiction to avoid reaching the true Second Amendment issues, which would have spelled the end of Connecticut’s unconstitutional law. We have already filed our notice of appeal, and we will seek speedy review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If the Second Circuit forces us to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, we will.

We view the district court’s decision as legally and logically unsustainable, and, at times, it opens fire on its own reasoning. In sum, the district court ruled that Mr. Nastri had not shown that he faced a credible threat of prosecution because he could not identify any instances where someone had been charged for violating Connecticut’s prohibition and because the director of Connecticut’s environmental police testified that he does not have the staff to universally enforce the law across Connecticut. The district court acknowledged that the same director testified that, if he or his officers caught someone like Nastri in a state park or forest with a handgun, they would prosecute him for violating the law though. He also testified that any Connecticut police officer could prosecute someone like Nastri for violating the prohibition. Thus, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, Nastri more than established standing (the legal right) to bring his lawsuit.

We will have plenty to say about the district court’s decision in front of the Second Circuit. Its invocation of a “moribund law” exception to traditional standing principles has never been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As of now, we are currently evaluating our options for seeking emergency relief pending the resolution of Nastri’s appeal.

Great summary by Cameron.  It's very clear there should be consequence for "judicial malpractice".  Blatant disregard for fundamental judicial principles should be unacceptable.  Why are doctors held liable for bad medical decisions?  same for all other professionals.  This was not even an accident, it's just fiction as Cameron put it.  Judge starts with the predetermined objective and flips all logic and precedent on its head.

What August 1st deadline?

@MikeOD82

in another thread which it has been discussed with some detail, I dont have the link but it was here and regarding 6667, I dont want to derail this thread, but its about tax forbearance or "amnesty" form 1 SBR's, if you applied and pending, or got approved for one for your ct "other", you need to email the slfu a copy of such by 8/1/23. either a copy of the submitted form, or a copy of completed form.
but as I see it, the SLFU offered no guidance on anything yet, so...they can fuck off.

That makes no sense (not you, the law). I'll have to call an attorney to figure out what's going on.

The attorney likely won't be able to tell you anything constructive other than what everyone else, who's read the bill, already knows. Right now the ball is in SLFU's court and everyone is waiting to see what they put out and when. The August 1 deadline for sending SLFU a copy of certain CT "other" ATF pistol brace SBR Form 1's have been mentioned in other discussions in this subforum and on other websites. Rather than clutter up this discussion on a different subject, see the following link (page 24) where OLR summarizes the 2023 assault weapon compliance option for CT "others" that are being SBR'd under the ATF pistol brace rule (and forbearance period):
https://cga.ct.gov/2023/BA/PDF/2023HB-06667-R010841-BA.PDF#page=24

Or read PA 23-53 to see the very confusing directions. See page 54 and page 59.

Chances are high, and the speculation by some is, SLFU will interpret the written language on that August 1 Form 1 copy submission very loosely or simply ignore it and come up with some other process for allowing ATF pistol brace CT "others" to comply with the new law. But for now no one should be bending the knee and sending anything to SLFU until they publish the updated forms and registration information/process. Everyone should; just take a deep breath, relax, don't panic, and stand by for more information.

Thank you.