Posted on 01/31/2014 1:05:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Edited 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.
Wow.
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 Connecticut’s 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 Connecticut’s 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 court’s 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.
http://gunssavelives.net/news/breaking-federal-court-says-connecticuts-gun-ban-is-legal/
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.
Bastards!
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 doesn’t 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.
“It’s fanciful to think that guns in the hands of citizens acts as a realistic check,” said Donohue. “They’re not really trained to do so. And it’s fanciful to think that the military would ever turn on U.S. citizens.”
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.