Bad Ruling, and Hopfully a Strong Appeal

Wow, this is just a HORRIBLE ruling!

“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.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Bad Ruling, and Hopfully a Strong Appeal

  1. Archer says:

    Yep. Directly against Heller.

    It’s particularly egregious that the judge even quotes Heller, and finds against the plaintiffs anyway. He concedes to the plaintiffs that so-called “assault weapons” are “in common use,” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment per Heller, but concludes that the government’s compelling public safety interest overrides it.

    A deeper reading of Heller, IIRC, says the government cannot ban wholesale an entire class of firearms – “handguns” being the subject class in Heller – but the judge finds it OK to ban semi-auto rifles, citing “public safety,” despite rifles being used in a statistically-irrelevant number of crimes compared to handguns, which are expressly protected.

    The logical fallacies present here are truly dizzying (read: nauseating).

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yeah, I choose to look at this ruling as a blessing rather than a curse. If it wasn’t so horrible there would be NO chance in this going to the US Supreme Court, and therefore would only effect Connecticut, and others states without an AWB who are contemplating one, or planning on expanding theirs….tho those laws it wouldn’t effect directly it would just threaten legal action.

      On the US level it might actually strike DOWN the AWBs on the books.

      • The Jack says:

        That they openly admit it’s an infringement seems to be a poor move tactically.

        Especially when the only justification is “public safety”.

        Given some many of these rulings depend on the illusion that gun control isn’t an infringement.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          Yep, Public safety is NEVER justification for infringement of rights. We could easily say that suspending the 4th Amendment and allow the Police to run rampant on society would lock up more criminals…but that’s a police state.

          Of course I’d say a police state is EXACTLY what “Progressives” want.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *