Skip to comments.Judge upholds Connecticut gun control law passed after Newtown shootings
Posted on 01/31/2014 1:05:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVetEdited on 01/31/2014 2:11:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A federal judge on Thursday upheld Connecticut's tough gun control law that was passed in the wake of the deadly 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The stringent law is constitutional, said the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Alfred Covello, denying a legal challenge by a group of gun owners.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
It will probably be challenged.
I find that interesting because they're so fond of calling us racist for being pro-gun, pro-self defense, and anti-amnesty. I think new england needs some color. They aren't eating the garbage they're serving.
If I lived in connecticut, I would fight to turn my state into a mecca for brown and black. And then, once it was, I would move far away.
Watch gun crime go up now.
Criminals here almost assume we’re armed, even the ladies. And they’re right.
The new law is clearly unconstitutional. The court’s ruling is not only wrong but also illegitimate. Still, the law and the ruling will make life harder for decent people in that state.
We had concealed carry here in GA long before you guys and FL did. About 5% of the adult population has a CCW license, a fact you don’t see in the news much.
Take it to the USSC.
So what, Roberts will rule it is a tax, or some such inanity. Face it, the Constitution today is a nice piece of paper. In Acirema all is upside down and backwards. Criminals are rewarded. Honest citizens are punished.
The Republic is in more danger than at any time in its history. Even the War of Yankee Aggression was open conflict. This is a peaceful destruction. If now is not the time for upside down flags, it never will be.
I waited nine months for this piece of sh*t ruling!? Is there any logic left in the judiciary?
Commie judge rules Unconstitutional law to be constitutional.
Surprised? Not me.
I am sure that Colt, Ruger, Mossberg, Marlin and other firearm companies in Connecticut will be very interested.
BREAKING: Federal Court Says Connecticuts Gun Ban is Legal
January 30 2014
by Dan Cannon
Share This Post
In a blow to gun rights everywhere, a federal judge has ruled that Connecticuts ban on assault weapons (yes, that is an actual, legal term in the state of Connecticut now) is completely constitutional.
The court case was brought by a large group of gun manufacturers, retailers, gun rights groups and individual gun owners.
According to The Courant,
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 Adam Lanza killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought
Obviously, the court cannot foretell how successful the legislation will be in preventing crime, Covello wrote. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the courts inquiry here, Connecticut, in passing the legislation, has drawn reasonable inferences from substantial evidence.
The plaintiffs are expected to appeal the decision.
U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello is 81 years old and was appointed by President George HW Bush (aka Bush Sr.) back in 1992.
Connecticut has turned into a welfare state. Sad to see. Time to get the h*ll out of here.
Take it to SCOTUS if necessary.
And more gun manufacturers move out.
The more they tell me I don’t need 30 round magazines, the more I know I do need them.
Me too. :(
While the act burdens the plaintiffs Second Amendment rights,...”
Stop right there judge!
In those words right there you are admitting that the ruling today will be infringing and the law is unconstitutional. Yet offers no constitutional basis for the second part of that statement ruling justifying such infringing. What, because I feel like it? Because it happens to be a popular opinion because a majority of the main stream media opinion pages say so?
Stanford Law Professor: Second Amendment Is About Restricting Gun Rights
Has he even read the Second Amendment?
Via Daily Caller:
A Stanford University law professor took the view that the Second Amendment permits strong gun control, telling the crowd that restriction has to be at the core of the right to carry a gun.
John J. Donohue, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, made his remarks during a debate with attorney Donald Kilmer, an adjunct professor at Lincoln Law School of San Jose.
I support the right to self-defense, said Donohue during the debate, according to The Stanford Review. But that doesnt mean that you have a right to high-capacity magazines. [...]
He also criticized the argument that the right to bear arms was necessary for American citizens to guard against tyranny.
Its fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check, said Donohue. Theyre not really trained to do so. And its fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.
“reasonable inferences from substantial evidence”
Hmmm...I am unaware of ANY study showing gun bans reduce violent crime. So what is the “substantial evidence”, other than loudly spoken assertions?
Short answer, zip point squat, to the doodly power, but, then again, you knew that...
What does this racist post have to do with the article?
Why are gun grabbers so violent? Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence legislator in jail for beating his girlfriend
January 30, 2014
How embarrassing. A Massachusetts low-information legislator is now appearing at the Bay States capitol building in handcuffs to testify at hearings.
Who is this Democrat state representative and why is he in cuffs?
His name is Carlos Henriquez.
Hes in cuffs following his conviction for beating the snot out of his then-girlfriend in July 2012.
Democrat inmate lawmaker Rep. Carlos Henriquez is steadfastly refusing to resign his seat, and he is doggedly holding onto his job, trying to execute it from his jail cell while he serves a 6-month jail term for beating the snot out of that former girlfriend.
The sweet irony here is that Democrat inmate lawmaker Rep. Carlos Henriquez has a been an ardent supporter of the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. We think we know why. Its self-interest as he doesnt want people in general, and his dating pool of single ladies in particular, to have the means to defend themselves from violent perpetrators like him.
The irony is extra rich as he had the audacity to appear at a Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence event late last year, while his trial was pending following his July 2012 arrest on the domestic violence charge.
I seriously doubt that any of them will take more than token action in response.
It has everything to do with the article and it isn’t racist. It’s an observation of fact. Liberal New England states like Connecticut pass liberal laws and push liberal agendas and then stand up on their moral high ground and say, look at us, we’re tolerant and conservatives are racists. Never mind the fact that, for some strange reason, they are the whitest most unintegrated states in the union. I personally can’t wait for global warming to raise the oceans and drown these sanctimonious rats.