“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional,” wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello. “While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.”…But the judge wrote that the plaintiffs failed to convince him that restrictions on firearms must meet a higher level of scrutiny than a general governmental interest in preserving public safety. Heller guaranteed that individuals cannot be disarmed, not that guns cannot be regulated, he said.
This judge should be ashamed of himself!
Covello said that gun owners met one legal burden, proving that the Connecticut law banned firearms in “common use,” one of the standards established by Heller….”Connecticut has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the ban of certain semiautomatic firearms and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] and the important governmental ‘objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime.’ ” Covello wrote. “The relationship need not fit perfectly. Obviously, the court cannot foretell how successful the legislation will be in preventing crime. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the court’s inquiry here, Connecticut, in passing the legislation, has drawn reasonable inferences from substantial evidence.”
Gun owners promised to appeal.
I suspect the appeal will be VERY strong. This ruling appears to go directly against Heller, as well as the 2nd Amendment.