Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/21/2014 8:22:10 AM EDT
20 ish minutes ago according to a CCDL FB post oral arguments have been CANCELLED for Jan. 30th and the judge will rule "forthwith".

Hmmmmm.  Good or bad?

id link it but im on my phone.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 8:26:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2014 8:30:50 AM EDT by sbhaven]
http://ccdl.us/blog/2014/01/21/important-no-court-on-january-30th/

IMPORTANT! No Court On January 30th!!!
Posted on January 21, 2014  by  Chris

Oral arguments in Shew v Malloy are cancelled!!!! No court on January 30th!!!

From our Lead attorney Brian Stapleton:

“Judge Covello has just cancelled arguments currently scheduled. He is going to issue a decision “forthwith.” As soon as I hear I will let you all know.”

Edit: CCDL Facebook link to the announcement and comments on it.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 8:30:17 AM EDT
looks like he doesnt want media ..
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 8:32:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 8:33:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bikerman9967:
looks like he doesnt want media ..
View Quote

One person on the CCDL facebook page claims this is SOP for this judge since he doesn't normally do oral arguments on motions. Who knows.

It could go either way, but I won't be shocked if he upholds the law completely forcing an appeal to a higher court. Not wanting the media could go either way too.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 8:36:22 AM EDT
Thanks sbhaven!

CCDL lawyer says its neither good or bad.  It just means the judge thinks he has enough to rule.

on a good note everything I've read has said Judge Covello is a constitutional purest.

We shall see..........
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 8:37:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2014 8:37:51 AM EDT by nukebabysitter]
*removed* duplicate comment
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 9:03:41 AM EDT
this might actually be a positive thing.

if he plans to overturn the law, it would be a disaster to have the gungrabbers and the media there...
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 9:18:29 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LibertarianYankee:
this might actually be a positive thing.

if he plans to overturn the law, it would be a disaster to have the gungrabbers and the media there...
View Quote


...and plus, if he plans to rule the law as constitutional, becuase of the accelleration of the time table the plaintiffs seeking to overturn NY's SAFE act will be requesting the Supreme Court to hear their appeal at the same time the CCDL will be requesting them to hear theirs.  That means there will be a much greater chance the supreme court will be hearing the issue since multiple states will be wanting answers to the exact same issue.  That means the entire country will be getting in on one side or the other, since it threatens to open the door to such bans elsewhere.

In other words, all we're seeing here is act one.  It ain't even remotely over.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 10:57:30 AM EDT
Sorry to throw cold water on this, but I have a feeling based on this news that Covello will rule in favor of the state on this one.  I have been through this before and it is my experience that, in general, a federal judge -- at least in Connecticut -- will not find a law invalid without oral argument and is more inclined to uphold the law without argument.  I suspect that he has made his mind up that he will evaluate the law under either rational basis or intermediate scrutiny (you can look those up on Wikipedia if you want details) rather than strict scrutiny, therefore putting the burden on the plaintiffs rather than the state.  If he has done that, then he could feel comfortable making the ruling without hearing anything more since the state will not need to build a record for appeal, which he knows will be coming regardless of how he rules.

I have been wrong before and I hope that I am wrong again here.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 11:20:16 AM EDT
Sorry for this question guys...I am a little late to this.  Is this a ruling on hi cap mags?
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 11:21:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2014 11:23:59 AM EDT by sbhaven]
From the CCDL Facebook page.

Martha Dean is one of our lawyers. Please read this msg from her:
2ND AMENDMENT LEGAL ALERT: The U.S. District Court for Connecticut, Judge Alfred Covello, has just cancelled oral arguments scheduled for January 30, 2014 in Shew v. Malloy, the 2nd Amendment challenge brought by Connecticut citizens, CCDL, CCS, and two retailers challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's new firearms law. This could mean any one of a number of things ranging from: (a) the judge has studied the parties' briefs and the thousands of pages of expert affidavits and other evidence and is ready to write a favorable decision, all the way to (z) the judge has read the recent NY SAFE Act decision and is now preparing to replicate it, to anything in between these possibilities. It's not worth spending time speculating or worrying, since his decision to cancel oral argument could point to one option just as readily as any other. We are pleased that the court is moving the case forward expeditiously and we are hopeful that Judge Covello will not repeat the errors of the NY SAFE Act decision. We stand ready to appeal any unfavorable outcome.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 11:22:24 AM EDT
In a fantasy world, what happens with the Litigation fund if the law is fully struck down?
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 11:29:03 AM EDT
Without commenting on whether this is a good development or not, I continue to wonder what happens to people who were fined, arrested, or imprisoned due to a law that was eventually struck down as being unconstitutional.

Does the government simply say, "My bad?" Is there restitution of some sort (ie, $$$)? Record wiped clean?
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:07:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Without commenting on whether this is a good development or not, I continue to wonder what happens to people who were fined, arrested, or imprisoned due to a law that was eventually struck down as being unconstitutional.rturne

Does the government simply say, "My bad?" Is there restitution of some sort (ie, $$$)? Record wiped clean?
View Quote

In a perfect world those who voted for the law and the person who signed it into law would be held responsible for its consequences when found unconstitutional. But that will never happen. Those arrested under such a law that was later overturned probably could try to sue but it would be the tax payers in the end who would pay for any settlement or monetary verdict. I would think that anyone arrested and convicted on a law that was later ruled unconstitutional would have their conviction vacated. But who knows.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:08:07 PM EDT
Probably need to get George Soros involved and get a hold of bus loads of soccer moms
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:08:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
From the CCDL Facebook page.

Martha Dean is one of our lawyers. Please read this msg from her:
2ND AMENDMENT LEGAL ALERT: The U.S. District Court for Connecticut, Judge Alfred Covello, has just cancelled oral arguments scheduled for January 30, 2014 in Shew v. Malloy, the 2nd Amendment challenge brought by Connecticut citizens, CCDL, CCS, and two retailers challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's new firearms law. This could mean any one of a number of things ranging from: (a) the judge has studied the parties' briefs and the thousands of pages of expert affidavits and other evidence and is ready to write a favorable decision, all the way to (z) the judge has read the recent NY SAFE Act decision and is now preparing to replicate it, to anything in between these possibilities. It's not worth spending time speculating or worrying, since his decision to cancel oral argument could point to one option just as readily as any other. We are pleased that the court is moving the case forward expeditiously and we are hopeful that Judge Covello will not repeat the errors of the NY SAFE Act decision. We stand ready to appeal any unfavorable outcome.
View Quote


Martha rocks! Love that woman
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:25:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KSODA:


Martha rocks! Love that woman
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By KSODA:
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
From the CCDL Facebook page.

Martha Dean is one of our lawyers. Please read this msg from her:
2ND AMENDMENT LEGAL ALERT: The U.S. District Court for Connecticut, Judge Alfred Covello, has just cancelled oral arguments scheduled for January 30, 2014 in Shew v. Malloy, the 2nd Amendment challenge brought by Connecticut citizens, CCDL, CCS, and two retailers challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's new firearms law. This could mean any one of a number of things ranging from: (a) the judge has studied the parties' briefs and the thousands of pages of expert affidavits and other evidence and is ready to write a favorable decision, all the way to (z) the judge has read the recent NY SAFE Act decision and is now preparing to replicate it, to anything in between these possibilities. It's not worth spending time speculating or worrying, since his decision to cancel oral argument could point to one option just as readily as any other. We are pleased that the court is moving the case forward expeditiously and we are hopeful that Judge Covello will not repeat the errors of the NY SAFE Act decision. We stand ready to appeal any unfavorable outcome.


Martha rocks! Love that woman


x2
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:31:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ewetstone:
Sorry for this question guys...I am a little late to this.  Is this a ruling on hi cap mags?
View Quote


It is a ruling on the assault weapon ban, the ban on hi capacity mags, and the limit of keeping ten rounds in any magazine.  OR, I should say, it's the first ruling.  Then comes the second ruling from the US district court, and then afterwards the third ruling from the Supreme Court.

I don't think the law requiring a permit or certificate to buyt ammo was part of the lawsuit since they had to pick their battles carefully to ensure their best chance of winning, so we're probably stuck with that.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:44:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:


It is a ruling on the assault weapon ban, the ban on hi capacity mags, and the limit of keeping ten rounds in any magazine.  OR, I should say, it's the first ruling.  Then comes the second ruling from the US district court, and then afterwards the third ruling from the Supreme Court.

I don't think the law requiring a permit or certificate to buyt ammo was part of the lawsuit since they had to pick their battles carefully to ensure their best chance of winning, so we're probably stuck with that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:
Originally Posted By ewetstone:
Sorry for this question guys...I am a little late to this.  Is this a ruling on hi cap mags?


It is a ruling on the assault weapon ban, the ban on hi capacity mags, and the limit of keeping ten rounds in any magazine.  OR, I should say, it's the first ruling.  Then comes the second ruling from the US district court, and then afterwards the third ruling from the Supreme Court.

I don't think the law requiring a permit or certificate to buyt ammo was part of the lawsuit since they had to pick their battles carefully to ensure their best chance of winning, so we're probably stuck with that.


Thanx for the update.  what date is a ruling expected?
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:53:21 PM EDT
When has a Federal judge....or any judge for that matter........found in favor of the shooting sports here in Connecticut?  Just sayin.......

Rome
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 12:58:57 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
When has a Federal judge....or any judge for that matter........found in favor of the shooting sports here in Connecticut?  Just sayin.......

Rome
View Quote

Hey, they did in DC and Chicago. If its possible there it's possible anywhere.
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 1:24:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
When has a Federal judge....or any judge for that matter........found in favor of the shooting sports here in Connecticut?  Just sayin.......

Rome
View Quote

Who would have thought that a judge would have tossed out the 7 round limit in NY?
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 4:23:15 PM EDT
Probably read the NY case, and will choose "safety" over liberty -
Link Posted: 1/21/2014 4:57:33 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mjm1:
Probably read the NY case, and will choose "safety" over liberty -
View Quote


And Ben Franklin shakes his head in amazent...
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 1:53:08 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hihobrian:
In a fantasy world, what happens with the Litigation fund if the law is fully struck down?
View Quote


It will still be needed because the state will appeal it all the way to the supreme court.

As noted, the most likely thing is he will follow the decision made supporting most of NY's SAFE act.
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 3:58:00 AM EDT
My gut tells me that he, like the other judges here in CT, will say that the law was dutifully passed by the legislature which was duly elected to represent the citizens of CT.  The fact that a "minority' of citizen complain that the law is unconstitutional notwithstanding, he won't overturn something that legally went through the machinations of the legislature.  It's not like Malloy declared an edict and obfuscated the legislature like Obama is trying to do.  There are always those who complain when their side loses and challenge laws that were legally processed and passed but there are always winners and losers.   My prediction is that nothing will change with the laws that are currently in force.  The citizens and legislature and governor have spoken.

I understand that other states have had laws upended after the citizens have spoken.  Washington State and California come to mind but in those cases, the laws passed were "conservative" laws and the judges found in favor of the liberal complaints against them.  Here you're asking a judge to find in favor of a conservative group against a liberal government and citizenry.  It just doesn't work like that in reality, at least not from where I sit.

Let me make it clear, however, that I'm just a working joe and not a politician hack or lawyer.  I'm just spouting my opinion which is, admittedly, skewed to the negative pretty badly anymore.  People who know me know that I used to be a lot more optimistic about things but I've finally  been beaten down by this state.  I just refuse to get my hopes up that anything will change for us here.  If it does, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.  Believe me, I'm holding out just a tiny bit of hope that I am but it's not much.

Rome
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 4:21:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
My gut tells me that he, like the other judges here in CT, will say that the law was dutifully passed by the legislature which was duly elected to represent the citizens of CT.  The fact that a "minority' of citizen complain that the law is unconstitutional notwithstanding, he won't overturn something that legally went through the machinations of the legislature.  It's not like Malloy declared an edict and obfuscated the legislature like Obama is trying to do.  There are always those who complain when their side loses and challenge laws that were legally processed and passed but there are always winners and losers.   My prediction is that nothing will change with the laws that are currently in force.  The citizens and legislature and governor have spoken.

I understand that other states have had laws upended after the citizens have spoken.  Washington State and California come to mind but in those cases, the laws passed were "conservative" laws and the judges found in favor of the liberal complaints against them.  Here you're asking a judge to find in favor of a conservative group against a liberal government and citizenry.  It just doesn't work like that in reality, at least not from where I sit.

Let me make it clear, however, that I'm just a working joe and not a politician hack or lawyer.  I'm just spouting my opinion which is, admittedly, skewed to the negative pretty badly anymore.  People who know me know that I used to be a lot more optimistic about things but I've finally  been beaten down by this state.  I just refuse to get my hopes up that anything will change for us here.  If it does, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.  Believe me, I'm holding out just a tiny bit of hope that I am but it's not much.

Rome
View Quote


Couldn't have said it any better myself...particularly that last paragraph.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 5:34:51 AM EDT
Good morning AR15.com!! It has been a long time since I have logged on here. Keep the faith! We don't have any idea how this ruling will play out, but we have said from the get go that we would appeal no matter what... Even if we win the state will appeal so let's all hang on together. This could be a long ride. We are just over a year into it now.

I will try to come and post a lit bit to keep everyone updated, but please feel free to visit CCDL on our Facebook page too.

Scott
CCDL President

P.S. Thank you guys for any moral support in advance...
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 5:38:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2014 5:46:05 AM EDT by GoodOlDave]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ewetstone:


Thanx for the update.  what date is a ruling expected?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ewetstone:
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:
Originally Posted By ewetstone:
Sorry for this question guys...I am a little late to this.  Is this a ruling on hi cap mags?


It is a ruling on the assault weapon ban, the ban on hi capacity mags, and the limit of keeping ten rounds in any magazine.  OR, I should say, it's the first ruling.  Then comes the second ruling from the US district court, and then afterwards the third ruling from the Supreme Court.

I don't think the law requiring a permit or certificate to buyt ammo was part of the lawsuit since they had to pick their battles carefully to ensure their best chance of winning, so we're probably stuck with that.


Thanx for the update.  what date is a ruling expected?


All the judge said that he would make a ruling "forthwith".  That is legal speak for "he already made his decision and now we have to wait until he finishes typing it up", be it days or even weeks.  He knows full well his decision is going to take center stage at the inevitable appeal so he needs to document the reasons baking up his decision as articulately as possible.

Personally, I will be very surprised if he doesn'tl allow the assault weapon ban to stand.  Not only did the courts in NY allow their AW ban to stand, the courts in CT allowed the first AW ban to stand when it was challenged back in 1994.
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 5:51:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2014 5:52:04 AM EDT by romma]
Keep in mind that the 94' ruling was State court and it was also pre-Heller.
Link Posted: 1/22/2014 6:01:03 AM EDT
I too am not counting on a good decision out of this judge but I am hopeful. Either way he has made his decision and we are not done by any means. Both sides have vowed to fight this. I will continue to donate to the cause and protection of our state and federal rights.
Link Posted: 1/23/2014 5:41:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2014 5:58:44 AM EDT by CTGunner82]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:


All the judge said that he would make a ruling "forthwith".  That is legal speak for "he already made his decision and now we have to wait until he finishes typing it up", be it days or even weeks.  He knows full well his decision is going to take center stage at the inevitable appeal so he needs to document the reasons baking up his decision as articulately as possible.

Personally, I will be very surprised if he doesn'tl allow the assault weapon ban to stand.  Not only did the courts in NY allow their AW ban to stand, the courts in CT allowed the first AW ban to stand when it was challenged back in 1994.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:
Originally Posted By ewetstone:
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:
Originally Posted By ewetstone:
Sorry for this question guys...I am a little late to this.  Is this a ruling on hi cap mags?


It is a ruling on the assault weapon ban, the ban on hi capacity mags, and the limit of keeping ten rounds in any magazine.  OR, I should say, it's the first ruling.  Then comes the second ruling from the US district court, and then afterwards the third ruling from the Supreme Court.

I don't think the law requiring a permit or certificate to buyt ammo was part of the lawsuit since they had to pick their battles carefully to ensure their best chance of winning, so we're probably stuck with that.


Thanx for the update.  what date is a ruling expected?


All the judge said that he would make a ruling "forthwith".  That is legal speak for "he already made his decision and now we have to wait until he finishes typing it up", be it days or even weeks.  He knows full well his decision is going to take center stage at the inevitable appeal so he needs to document the reasons baking up his decision as articulately as possible.

Personally, I will be very surprised if he doesn'tl allow the assault weapon ban to stand.  Not only did the courts in NY allow their AW ban to stand, the courts in CT allowed the first AW ban to stand when it was challenged back in 1994.


How on earth can an AW ban be ruled legitimate after the Heller decision?  Did the judge in the recent NY decision address that at all?

EDIT : I found an article that explains the judge in the NY case said the ban did affect firearms in common use, but that is OK because it is for public safety.
Link Posted: 1/23/2014 6:15:16 AM EDT
The last document filed by our attorney days before oral arguments were cancelled. Enjoy: http://ccdl.us/blog/2014/01/22/memorandum-of-law/
Link Posted: 1/23/2014 7:26:57 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By romma:
The last document filed by our attorney days before oral arguments were cancelled. Enjoy: http://ccdl.us/blog/2014/01/22/memorandum-of-law/
View Quote

Thanks.  Making it hot.

http://ccdl.us/blog/2014/01/22/memorandum-of-law/
Link Posted: 1/23/2014 9:54:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2014 10:43:48 AM EDT by GoodOlDave]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CTGunner82:
How on earth can an AW ban be ruled legitimate after the Heller decision?  Did the judge in the recent NY decision address that at all?

EDIT : I found an article that explains the judge in the NY case said the ban did affect firearms in common use, but that is OK because it is for public safety.
View Quote


I've read the judge's ruling, and from what I can determine, his reasoning is this-

a) He recognizes the Heller rulng of the 2A being an individual right for self defense as the standard that all gun control decisions need to be based on
b) He then goes on to say that individual rights do have acceptable limits that protect the public good (he refers to limits on the First Amendment as an example)
c) He acknowledges that the courts have more or less universally acknowledged handguns are the de fact acceptable standard for home self defense
d) He then states that features such as pistol grips and collapsible stocks make the weapons with such features much easier to use, and therefore much more lethal, than the acceptable standard for self defense that handguns have

...which lead him to rule...

e) Since the ban only affects a small subset of firearms rather than all firearms as a whole (as the Chicago bans did), and since it was not a complete ban, but a freeze, since people who have them were allowed to keep them once they were registered, and since there are many other suitable alternatives for self defense other than the firearms that contain these features, he concluded the SAFE act was not an infringement of the secomd amendment and is a legitimate restriction in the interests of public safety.  

One concern I have in his ruling is that in one paragraph he agrees with the defendents that firearms with these banned features are more lethal than weapons that don't have them, and a few paragraphs down he acknowledges that handguns (which don't have such features) are being used to cause mass casualty every bit as much as firearms with assault weapon features have the ability to do.  He pasess this off by claiming it's up to the legislature, not the courts, to resolve such a contradiction, and that the legislation only needs to have a substancial impact and doesn't need to be perfect.  There has to be grounds for an appeal there somewhere.

What I do find encouraging is his overturning of the limit on loading magazines with only seven rounds.  He states that such a limit is unconstitutional because ten round magazines remain legal and making such an arbitray limit will have a disproportionate affect on the second amendment right to self defense.  That seems to me to be the seed that will convince the CT judge throw out the 10 round limit on high capacity magazines because unlike NY,CT owners of high capacity magazines are still allowed to keep them.
Link Posted: 1/23/2014 3:09:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:


I've read the judge's ruling, and from what I can determine, his reasoning is this-

a) He recognizes the Heller rulng of the 2A being an individual right for self defense as the standard that all gun control decisions need to be based on
b) He then goes on to say that individual rights do have acceptable limits that protect the public good (he refers to limits on the First Amendment as an example)
c) He acknowledges that the courts have more or less universally acknowledged handguns are the de fact acceptable standard for home self defense
d) He then states that features such as pistol grips and collapsible stocks make the weapons with such features much easier to use, and therefore much more lethal, than the acceptable standard for self defense that handguns have

...which lead him to rule...

e) Since the ban only affects a small subset of firearms rather than all firearms as a whole (as the Chicago bans did), and since it was not a complete ban, but a freeze, since people who have them were allowed to keep them once they were registered, and since there are many other suitable alternatives for self defense other than the firearms that contain these features, he concluded the SAFE act was not an infringement of the secomd amendment and is a legitimate restriction in the interests of public safety.  

One concern I have in his ruling is that in one paragraph he agrees with the defendents that firearms with these banned features are more lethal than weapons that don't have them, and a few paragraphs down he acknowledges that handguns (which don't have such features) are being used to cause mass casualty every bit as much as firearms with assault weapon features have the ability to do.  He pasess this off by claiming it's up to the legislature, not the courts, to resolve such a contradiction, and that the legislation only needs to have a substancial impact and doesn't need to be perfect.  There has to be grounds for an appeal there somewhere.

What I do find encouraging is his overturning of the limit on loading magazines with only seven rounds.  He states that such a limit is unconstitutional because ten round magazines remain legal and making such an arbitray limit will have a disproportionate affect on the second amendment right to self defense.  That seems to me to be the seed that will convince the CT judge throw out the 10 round limit on high capacity magazines because unlike NY,CT owners of high capacity magazines are still allowed to keep them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:
Originally Posted By CTGunner82:
How on earth can an AW ban be ruled legitimate after the Heller decision?  Did the judge in the recent NY decision address that at all?

EDIT : I found an article that explains the judge in the NY case said the ban did affect firearms in common use, but that is OK because it is for public safety.


I've read the judge's ruling, and from what I can determine, his reasoning is this-

a) He recognizes the Heller rulng of the 2A being an individual right for self defense as the standard that all gun control decisions need to be based on
b) He then goes on to say that individual rights do have acceptable limits that protect the public good (he refers to limits on the First Amendment as an example)
c) He acknowledges that the courts have more or less universally acknowledged handguns are the de fact acceptable standard for home self defense
d) He then states that features such as pistol grips and collapsible stocks make the weapons with such features much easier to use, and therefore much more lethal, than the acceptable standard for self defense that handguns have

...which lead him to rule...

e) Since the ban only affects a small subset of firearms rather than all firearms as a whole (as the Chicago bans did), and since it was not a complete ban, but a freeze, since people who have them were allowed to keep them once they were registered, and since there are many other suitable alternatives for self defense other than the firearms that contain these features, he concluded the SAFE act was not an infringement of the secomd amendment and is a legitimate restriction in the interests of public safety.  

One concern I have in his ruling is that in one paragraph he agrees with the defendents that firearms with these banned features are more lethal than weapons that don't have them, and a few paragraphs down he acknowledges that handguns (which don't have such features) are being used to cause mass casualty every bit as much as firearms with assault weapon features have the ability to do.  He pasess this off by claiming it's up to the legislature, not the courts, to resolve such a contradiction, and that the legislation only needs to have a substancial impact and doesn't need to be perfect.  There has to be grounds for an appeal there somewhere.

What I do find encouraging is his overturning of the limit on loading magazines with only seven rounds.  He states that such a limit is unconstitutional because ten round magazines remain legal and making such an arbitray limit will have a disproportionate affect on the second amendment right to self defense.  That seems to me to be the seed that will convince the CT judge throw out the 10 round limit on high capacity magazines because unlike NY,CT owners of high capacity magazines are still allowed to keep them.


Thanks for that info, it is rather enlightening. It takes quite a misunderstanding of logic to argue that since there are other alternatives suitable for defense it is OK to ban this particular means of defense. Following that to its logical conclusion leaves you with a succession of bans that each only ban one class of weapons,  but ultimately leaves law abiding citizens defenseless.

Oh, and if an AR is no good for defense, then why do police around the country use them?
Link Posted: 1/23/2014 3:50:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CTGunner82:


Oh, and if an AR is no good for defense, then why do police around the country use them?
View Quote




The best defense is a good offense.

Link Posted: 1/24/2014 4:07:16 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By romma:
Good morning AR15.com!! It has been a long time since I have logged on here. Keep the faith! We don't have any idea how this ruling will play out, but we have said from the get go that we would appeal no matter what... Even if we win the state will appeal so let's all hang on together. This could be a long ride. We are just over a year into it now.

I will try to come and post a lit bit to keep everyone updated, but please feel free to visit CCDL on our Facebook page too.

Scott
CCDL President

P.S. Thank you guys for any moral support in advance...
View Quote

Link Posted: 1/24/2014 4:08:10 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:


I've read the judge's ruling, and from what I can determine, his reasoning is this-

a) He recognizes the Heller rulng of the 2A being an individual right for self defense as the standard that all gun control decisions need to be based on
b) He then goes on to say that individual rights do have acceptable limits that protect the public good (he refers to limits on the First Amendment as an example)
c) He acknowledges that the courts have more or less universally acknowledged handguns are the de fact acceptable standard for home self defense
d) He then states that features such as pistol grips and collapsible stocks make the weapons with such features much easier to use, and therefore much more lethal, than the acceptable standard for self defense that handguns have

...which lead him to rule...

e) Since the ban only affects a small subset of firearms rather than all firearms as a whole (as the Chicago bans did), and since it was not a complete ban, but a freeze, since people who have them were allowed to keep them once they were registered, and since there are many other suitable alternatives for self defense other than the firearms that contain these features, he concluded the SAFE act was not an infringement of the secomd amendment and is a legitimate restriction in the interests of public safety.  

One concern I have in his ruling is that in one paragraph he agrees with the defendents that firearms with these banned features are more lethal than weapons that don't have them, and a few paragraphs down he acknowledges that handguns (which don't have such features) are being used to cause mass casualty every bit as much as firearms with assault weapon features have the ability to do.  He pasess this off by claiming it's up to the legislature, not the courts, to resolve such a contradiction, and that the legislation only needs to have a substancial impact and doesn't need to be perfect.  There has to be grounds for an appeal there somewhere.

What I do find encouraging is his overturning of the limit on loading magazines with only seven rounds.  He states that such a limit is unconstitutional because ten round magazines remain legal and making such an arbitray limit will have a disproportionate affect on the second amendment right to self defense.  That seems to me to be the seed that will convince the CT judge throw out the 10 round limit on high capacity magazines because unlike NY,CT owners of high capacity magazines are still allowed to keep them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GoodOlDave:
Originally Posted By CTGunner82:
How on earth can an AW ban be ruled legitimate after the Heller decision?  Did the judge in the recent NY decision address that at all?

EDIT : I found an article that explains the judge in the NY case said the ban did affect firearms in common use, but that is OK because it is for public safety.


I've read the judge's ruling, and from what I can determine, his reasoning is this-

a) He recognizes the Heller rulng of the 2A being an individual right for self defense as the standard that all gun control decisions need to be based on
b) He then goes on to say that individual rights do have acceptable limits that protect the public good (he refers to limits on the First Amendment as an example)
c) He acknowledges that the courts have more or less universally acknowledged handguns are the de fact acceptable standard for home self defense
d) He then states that features such as pistol grips and collapsible stocks make the weapons with such features much easier to use, and therefore much more lethal, than the acceptable standard for self defense that handguns have

...which lead him to rule...

e) Since the ban only affects a small subset of firearms rather than all firearms as a whole (as the Chicago bans did), and since it was not a complete ban, but a freeze, since people who have them were allowed to keep them once they were registered, and since there are many other suitable alternatives for self defense other than the firearms that contain these features, he concluded the SAFE act was not an infringement of the secomd amendment and is a legitimate restriction in the interests of public safety.  

One concern I have in his ruling is that in one paragraph he agrees with the defendents that firearms with these banned features are more lethal than weapons that don't have them, and a few paragraphs down he acknowledges that handguns (which don't have such features) are being used to cause mass casualty every bit as much as firearms with assault weapon features have the ability to do.  He pasess this off by claiming it's up to the legislature, not the courts, to resolve such a contradiction, and that the legislation only needs to have a substancial impact and doesn't need to be perfect.  There has to be grounds for an appeal there somewhere.

What I do find encouraging is his overturning of the limit on loading magazines with only seven rounds.  He states that such a limit is unconstitutional because ten round magazines remain legal and making such an arbitray limit will have a disproportionate affect on the second amendment right to self defense.  That seems to me to be the seed that will convince the CT judge throw out the 10 round limit on high capacity magazines because unlike NY,CT owners of high capacity magazines are still allowed to keep them.



But not to carry them......


Let's see what Da' Judge says.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 6:58:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2014 7:00:58 AM EDT by GoodOlDave]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CTGunner82:
Thanks for that info, it is rather enlightening. It takes quite a misunderstanding of logic to argue that since there are other alternatives suitable for defense it is OK to ban this particular means of defense. Following that to its logical conclusion leaves you with a succession of bans that each only ban one class of weapons,  but ultimately leaves law abiding citizens defenseless.

Oh, and if an AR is no good for defense, then why do police around the country use them?
View Quote


That is actually one of the things that concerms me.  The judge in NY is essentially declaring, on his own accord, a legal definition of what an acceptable standard of self defense is and then uses that acceptable standard to rule the ban is a proper limit because it only restricts weapons which go above and beyond that acceptable standard of self defense.  HE IS MAKING A JUDICIAL DECISION ON A PREMISE THAT NEEDS ITS OWN JUDICIAL DECISION.  The police aren't permitted to possess tactical nuclear weapons or nerve gas becuase they are weapons that have a lethality that definitely go above and beyond the needs of law enforcement.  Why then would police be permitted to have these extra lethal assault weapons for the exact same reason?  That can't NOT be grounds for an appeal, right there.

I forwarded my concerns to the CCDL on the presumption the CT judge will just copy his ruling from the NY judge and they can use these issues to base their own appeal on, but they have their own generals so we'll see how it all proceeds.  Like Scott said, one side or the other will push this matter all the way to the Supreme court so whatever this judge decides will largely be moot anyway.
Link Posted: 1/24/2014 12:12:46 PM EDT
Along those lines.... who does decide what the state police/local police can be armed with? Is that codified anywhere?

Let's say Hartford SWAT wants real grenades and RPG's for the "emerging right-wing domestic terrorists".

What stops 'em?

Link Posted: 1/26/2014 6:23:10 PM EDT
Wouldn't it have been more effective to challenge the abuse of the E Cert process to get it tossed out first?  Then go after the constitutionality piece?
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 6:35:29 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By romma:
Keep in mind that the 94' ruling was State court and it was also pre-Heller.
View Quote


Arguably, much of the key reasoning from that ruling could be articulated to still be relevant even in light of the recent pro-individual right rulings.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 6:37:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 6:37:54 PM EDT by JAD]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Milspec99:
Wouldn't it have been more effective to challenge the abuse of the E Cert process to get it tossed out first?  Then go after the constitutionality piece?
View Quote


I already explained why that likely would not work. In short, courts generally don't evaluate legislative procedure. If the legislature certifies it passed, the courts tend to go along with it.

(Didn't somebody file a suit regarding the process, only to have it thrown out??)
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 6:42:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2014 6:42:59 PM EDT by Milspec99]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:


I already explained why that likely would not work. In short, courts generally don't evaluate legislative procedure. If the legislature certifies it passed, the courts tend to go along with it.

(Didn't somebody file a suit regarding the process, only to have it thrown out??)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:
Originally Posted By Milspec99:
Wouldn't it have been more effective to challenge the abuse of the E Cert process to get it tossed out first?  Then go after the constitutionality piece?


I already explained why that likely would not work. In short, courts generally don't evaluate legislative procedure. If the legislature certifies it passed, the courts tend to go along with it.

(Didn't somebody file a suit regarding the process, only to have it thrown out??)


My bad I thought that the first suite that was tossed challenged something other than the e cert process.
Link Posted: 1/26/2014 7:36:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:


I already explained why that likely would not work. In short, courts generally don't evaluate legislative procedure. If the legislature certifies it passed, the courts tend to go along with it.

(Didn't somebody file a suit regarding the process, only to have it thrown out??)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD:
Originally Posted By Milspec99:
Wouldn't it have been more effective to challenge the abuse of the E Cert process to get it tossed out first?  Then go after the constitutionality piece?


I already explained why that likely would not work. In short, courts generally don't evaluate legislative procedure. If the legislature certifies it passed, the courts tend to go along with it.

(Didn't somebody file a suit regarding the process, only to have it thrown out??)


Yep, it was the suit filed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.  It ws thrown out becuase the courts ruled they weren't injured by the ban and therefore were an ineligible party to be bringing such a grievance.
Link Posted: 1/27/2014 3:37:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Milspec99:
Wouldn't it have been more effective to challenge the abuse of the E Cert process to get it tossed out first?  Then go after the constitutionality piece?
View Quote

NSSF tried that and the court tossed the case in December. The judge stated that NSSF lacked "standing" and didn't rule on the underlying issue of the questionable use of eCert to pass SB1160. The judge stated that the NSSF case “does no more than state a ‘generally available grievance about government,’ which grievance is insufficient to support standing.”

Federal Judge Dismisses Challenge To New Gun Laws

You can read the Judge's ruling at this link.
Link Posted: 1/27/2014 5:19:01 AM EDT
I cringe when the judge talks about making a rifle/pistol "more lethal" by adding "features" like pistol grips and the like.  So, adding features makes them more "accurate"? Is that what he's saying?  Does it make us have the ability to make it shoot faster?  Well, maybe we should embark on a trade-off in order to make the rifles more clumsy less accurate.  We should have to remove the front or rear sight.  That would make it harder to aim, right? How 'bout we make the finger hole in the trigger too small for our shooting finger and we have to use our pinky to pull the trigger which, in order to comply, should have a 15 pound pull.  That would slow down pretty much everyone except us who play the accordion or piano and use our pinky more than most.

I just find it amazing how convoluted the logic has to be bent to find for the liberal anti-gun argument.  

Rome

(Typing the reply in view of the Pacific from my son's apartment here in Laguna Beach, CA while visiting.  Ya know, I feel less pressure and conspicuous here with guns than I do at home!  Here,at least, he can still sell face to face without state interference and my-o-my can still buy an AR!  Imagine that.  Don't worry..there still are a ton of screwed up laws here too but CT looks a lot  bluer from here!........R)
Top Top