Posted on 12/12/2010 5:02:31 AM PST by marktwain
A few months ago, Connecticut witnessed a tragic shooting in Manchester. Omar Thorton, an employee of Hartford Distributors, carried his lunch box into a morning meeting where he was about to be confronted with evidence of his theft of company material. Based on this evidence the employer asked for Thorton’s resignation.
Either aware or suspicious of the purpose of the meeting, however, Thorton had secreted into his lunch box two loaded 9 mm handguns. He inked his resignation letter, but as he was being escorted from the premises, he removed the weapons from his lunch box and began shooting employees of the company, eventually taking his own life. In his rampage, Thorton killed eight co-workers and seriously injured two others. Subsequent investigations revealed not only that Thorton possessed a valid pistol permit, but that he owned numerous other weapons.
In the past, these types of tragedies have propelled the question of whether the law should be changed so as to ban the possession of handguns. Times, however, have changed. Five weeks before this shooting the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s law banning the possession of handguns. McDonald v. City of Chicago followed the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling just two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, wherein the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession was found to violate the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While Heller decided the meaning of the Second Amendment, the McDonald case, also a 5-4 decision, addressed whether the right to bear arms was a “fundamental right” such that the Fourteenth Amendment compelled its enforcement against the individual states.
Between the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, the McDonald case is over 200 pages long. In light of its expansive review of the concept of “substantive due process,” it is destined to become mandatory reading in constitutional law classes. The majority and minority opinions counterpoint both fundamental and nuanced differences of opinion regarding the proper scope of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
As in Heller, the justices’ differ in their versions of our nation’s history as they attempt to discern the meaning of the language contained in both amendments. A central focus in their task was whether the framers actually intended the Second Amendment for self-defense purposes. Many historians posit the notion that the Second Amendment’s language reflected the founding fathers’ belief that militias were a more desirable mechanism for the defense of the nation than a standing army and their fear that a standing army created an inherent potential for tyranny.
In the “Constitution state,” however, no doubt exists as to our state’s framers’ intention. Since 1818, our constitution [Article First, § 15] has contained the provision: “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” (emphasis added). The McDonald majority cited several state constitutions (including Connecticut’s) to buttress its conclusion that the Second Amendment, although itself silent as to this purpose, was understood at the time to include the right to bear arms for self-defense. Thus our state’s history and constitution assisted the majority in McDonald in expanding the Second Amendment’s reach to the states.
Will Heller and McDonald affect Connecticut’s citizens? Up to now, challenges to state gun control laws have been made on state constitutional grounds. In 1988, the Connecticut Supreme Court held the state constitution “permits reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms.” Later, in Benjamin v. Bailey, the court upheld Connecticut’s law prohibiting the sale, transfer or possession of assault weapons explaining that, “as long as our citizens have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense, the state may proscribe the possession of other weapons without infringing on article first, § 15.”
Thus, before McDonald the General Assembly possessed the power to ban possession of handguns provided citizens were left with the right to possess weapons of reasonably sufficient firepower for self-defense. Connecticut’s judicial gloss of “reasonably sufficient firepower” will now be trumped by Second Amendment interpretations. Therefore, absent a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the federal Constitution, McDonald means the end of state handgun bans.
Where does it say that?
On the other hand, now that we will have a dem governor and a dem state Congress look for the gun laws in CT to change - drastically.
“Thus, before McDonald the General Assembly possessed the power to ban possession of handguns provided citizens were left with the right to possess weapons of reasonably sufficient firepower for self-defense.”
I overstated the court's decision based on what the attorneys said in the article. They left it up to the legislature to determine what weapons had reasonably sufficient firepower.
Therefore, absent a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the federal Constitution, McDonald means the end of state handgun bans.
And ....?
(Is there supposed to be a problem somewhere we're to take a guess at????) /s
Definitely Impeached. Who the HELL do they think they are, ruling in direct violation of the state constitution?
It still noted the discontinuity between the CT Supreme Court and the CT Constitution ~ which is probably of more interest to lawyers than the facts.
Way I look at it if the state supreme court in any state can just totally ignore the state's own constitution, then no one is safe regarding any issue at law.
Somewhere between what will be defined as "sufficient firepower" and what will be defined as "too much firepower" will be what is left to the Connecticut residents for owner ship.
Bye-bye ugly rifles. Hello .22LR single shots.
Liberals are out of their minds. An angry incompetent thinks he is being oppressed and shoots people. Liberals rush to control guns. A sane person would see that the problem is not guns but people whose “value system” allows them to shoot people out of an imagined feeling of discrimination.
Read the article (and it is just an article, not a court decision). The last sentence says:
“Therefore, absent a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the federal Constitution, McDonald means the end of state handgun bans.”
What is wrong with owning two 9mm pistols?
The CT Constitutional clause mentioned here was poorly written. The “shall not be infringed” language intimates that NO laws should restrict the oringinal 2A, while the CT language allows for some regulations, like the handgun ban which DOES NOT infringe on the right to defend one’s self with some other weapon. State laws DO, however, infringe on the fundamental right to “keep and bear arms.” CT should amend their language.
To sum up, the CT constitution recognizes the right... “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”...but does not state that the right is inviolate. (shall not be infringed.)
Nothing and EXACTLY correct.
I have two 9mm's. One is a 9x19 Parabellum (aka 9mm Luger) and one is a 9x18 Makarov(1). And after I get the 1911 .45ACP that's on my wish list I'll prolly get another gun chambered in 9x19 Parabellum (I like one brand/model that has a 15 round magazine and the price is right)
(1) The 9x18 Mak is a tad better ballistically than a .380 and is a perfect conceal or backup weapon. It's also good for a lady due to the lower recoil. And with the right ammo will drop a bad guy where he stands stood.
I don’t think that this thread is the proper place to debate which gun is better/best, but the 9mm Luger is immensely superior to the .380.
http://www.ballistics101.com/penetration_vs_velocity.php
Note that the 9mm is very close to the .45 ACP
If he had known there would be active resistance, he probably would have gone home and done himself in without harming others.
Maybe the liberals are coherent enough to realize that your approach would require banning, well, liberals!
Of course.
I have quite a few of my own.
I just wanted to see what I would get for a reply from anyone foolish enough to ask the wrong question.
The right question would have been whether anyone in his family had noticed any anti-social behavior or any grudges against his employer.
Libs almost always ask the wrong questions. And their answers are even worse.
What’s wrong with two 9mm pistols?
They’re not .45’s.
If he had known there would be active resistance, he probably would have gone home and done himself in without harming others.=============
Actually your last sentence is is the best answer to a question that cameraeye should have asked because being armed and able to defend yourself makes up for all of the mistakes made by others up until the point the problem is dumped on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.