Skip to comments.Federal Judge Upholds State's Tough Assault Weapons Ban (CT's Whole Anti 2nd Law Upheld)
Posted on 01/30/2014 6:14:50 PM PST by raybbr
HARTFORD Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.
"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.
A coalition of gun owners, gun sellers and sports shooting organizations sued in U.S. District Court to block enforcement of the law and overturn it on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued that the state's ban of 138 weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines is vague, discriminates among different categories of gun users and, most significantly, infringes on their Second Amendment right to gun ownership.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
Screw him and the lying horse he road in on. I hope this is appealed to the SCOTUS.
Infringe, infringe, I know what that word means.
Burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights = shall not be infringed.
Abortion at any time for any reason is Constitutionally protected and cannot be touched...
Don’t try that in Texas woman.
I love how these Federal Judges keeping finding that my rights are subjected to the whims of Police power. Funny, I didn’t see anything in the Constitution that says “This right void where prohibited”
many in govt can’t handle the fact they have only limited power.
Facts not proven.
Not a single criminal was burdened by that unconstitutional law.
Only law=abiding citizens had their rights violated.
I guess that we're all criminals now, in the eyes of the corrupt federal government.
By “Federal judge” they mean a Bill of Rights-hating, leftwing commie lib activist, right?
Uh, which Amendment is that? Is that found next to the "right" to abortion in the Constitution?
I now understand how and why it was that Jews in Europe surrendered everything without a fight and then dutifully lined up for death camps and mass graves.
We're living a repeat - even though we're armed, we line up in order to be systematically disarmed while the police are militarized and the government and media declares Conservatives to be a threat to security and the state.
We had a federal assault weapons ban for 10 years that basically did nothing to reduce crime. So how does the judge explain that?
How can such legislation possibly be constitutional?! Not only infringe upon, but to "burden"?
“Covello was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by President George H.W. Bush on April 1”
Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse this decision.
Ith that the thtuff on the hem of my thkirt?
Never mind that the empirical evidence is fewer guns, more crime.
Another FedMob judge who can’t read the Constitution.
A right such as the Second Amendment is INTRINSIC to the human condition.
THEREFORE it cannot be “balanced”by any other factor OR “norm”.
It is a PILLAR of support of human principles.
It stands on its own by right of Natural Right of Preservation and supernatural right from God.
Anything from God cannot be “balanced” by any other thing because it is INTRINSICALLY GOOD>-
Au Contraire, any other norms outside of the Bill of Rights are inferior to the INTRINSIC right to Self-DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNICAL GOVT which is EVIL>
THE GOOD can never be balanced Against Evil.
Evil is the absence of good.
Therefore this ruling is evil in its intents and authorship, as it goes against both Man and God.
What a specious argument. We now have enough evidence to show that broad gun liberties, not quite up to what we have via our Bill of Rights in the Constitution, improve "gun" violence rates.
Furthermore, what do you do about a government that sells guns to Mexican drug gangs? What do you do about a government interested in controlling and suppressing speech via targeted IRS tax-harassment? What do you do about a government interested in dictating to its people?
Compliance with Tyranny is Treason.
Looks like the Brown Shirts are wearing Black Robes nowadays.
If the government protected the right to bear arms the same way they protected the “right” to an abortion you would see:
1) Guns and gun safety taught in schools
2) Schools would hand out bullets
3) Children as young as 14 could buy guns without their parents knowledge or consent
4) No restrictions on gun sales regardless of mental illness
5) No registrations on gun sales
6) Gun store clerks would tell customers how to violate any gun laws
7) Gun control advocates wouldn’t be allowed to protest within 100’ of gun stores
8) There would be laws against the media publishing the names of gun owners.
More children (people younger than a month old) are killed by abortion than guns.
Another political hack in a black muumuu insisting that the plain language of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says.
So the foregoing information post about his ruling is false. There was no ruling???
This idiot was appointed by that other idiot Bush I.
Are you sure?
Once more we reminded exactly what of idiots the Bush Klan really are.
From the Heller decision:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding interest-balancing approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmenteven the Third Branch of Governmentthe power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.
The judge in this case gets an "F" in Constitutional Law.
So Covello is a Harvard creature-—— there’s a surprise.
Depressing, isn’t it?
All I know is that the NRA helped rush the NY law into Federal court and the lawyers did a lousy job arguing. Because they rushed this into Fed court, they completely screwed up a couple of cases winding their way through State court which were doing quite well up until Skretny’s ruling.
Judge Covello has just issued his decision. Unfortunately, we did not fare well. Judge Covello denied our motion and granted the States in its entirety. Not totally unexpected, and we were prepared all along for this possibility. CCDL is in this for the long haul, and you can be sure we will be filing an appeal forthwith.
Here is the decision. [click on this link>>] Decision and Order (pdf)
Source: Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc. Blog
It would be a great thing for America to have a Prez Admin with NO Ivy Leaguers.
And the same for the Supreme Court.
Those are chilling photos. Did they apply for guard camp positions as well?
For anyone interested [includes quotes from the judge on this case] . . .
Federal judge upholds Sandy Hook gun law
They are elitists for the most part - not too many William Buckleys left there.
They have unlimited power, they don't have unlimited authority.
We are no better off than an abused wife holding up a restraining order to fend off her attacking husband.
“government’s interest in reducing gun violence”
No such animal exists. guns are by nature passive. and are completely devoid of human attributes. they are made of wood, metal, plastic. this is result of failing to educate. the judge is a stupid moron.
He can read it, he just isn't constrained by it.
This clown makes it up as he goes along.
I’ve read a number of stories posted here on FR that an overwhelming majority of people are not registering their firearms and magazines. Hope it’s true.
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."IOW, government interest isn't constrained by the Constitution. Thanks raybbr.
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.