2nd Amendment lost in CT today

[Speedo66]

US Judge Upholds CT Gun Law

Sadly, just read this. The group that brought the suit says it will appeal. The judge admitted it curtailed 2nd Amendment rights, but said it was in the states safety interest. So much for individual rights.

To those of you who think gun owners in CT aren't doing anything, think again.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...&gwh=DA62F4C02F5DE104D3A9074386F9F359&gwt=pay

 

[Schwing]

It is a very sad state of affairs when the judge can admit that it is openly violating 2nd amendment rights... Yet say it is constitutional anyway.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

The judge said in his ruling that as long as a gun was available that the laws were legal.

Basically as long as a single shot .22 is available and everything else banned that judge would say the law was legal.

 

[ilbob]

just makes it easier to appeal. he is doing us a favor.

 

[larryh1108]

I agree that the swift decision opens the door to get it up to the Supreme Court. This is better than it sitting on a desk somewhere for months or years while the judge thinks about it. It will be appealed, by either side, until it gets to the top court. THAT decision will be the important one that will shape every state's future laws.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.



Well, this one may end up in SCOTUS.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...onnecticut-gun-control-law/?intcmp=latestnews

.
Federal judge upholds Connecticut gun control law

Published January 30, 2014 • Associated Press

A federal judge upheld Connecticut's gun control law on Thursday, saying the sweeping measure is constitutional even as he acknowledged the Second Amendment rights of gun owners who sued to block it.

The law does not prohibit possession of handguns, the "quintessential self-defense weapon" cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 landmark decision striking down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, he said. The prohibition of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines "does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves," Covello said.
.

.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Ah...but it DOES fall under that "shall not be infringed" part, does it not?

 

[moewadle]

Well, Chief et al

"shall not be infringed" when taken literally would, of course, mean no infringement at all on the right to keep and bear arms. So, using that premise I should be able to keep an atomic explosive weapon in my basement and a 88 mm howitzer in my front yard. So, it becomes a dicey conundrum for the courts and the citizens to decide where infringement begins.

 

[BigBore44]

Think about a flip side of this for a minute. By him ruling the way he did, admitting what he admitted, this opens the door for SCOTUS to rule once and for all on the matter and be done with it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That is as silly coming from pro-gun people as it is coming from pro-gun control people.

Nuclear weapons are, in no way, comparable to "arms".

 

[BigBore44]

This thread is already being discussed. So if it gets closed, just scroll down.

 

[Skribs]

If the government can have nukes, why shouldn't we? Do we draw the line at their ability to cause mass casualties? Because if so, the antis will just push that line all the way to semi-automatics and weapons that can hold more than the number of rounds they say you need for self defense.

 

[moewadle]

So, Chief

why are nuclear weapons often referred to as NUCLEAR ARMS? They are in fact arms. Arms are not just guns and knives.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That still makes the argument absolutely silly. Nukes are in no way anywhere near the same class of weapon as firearms and such.

Even just building them, not to mention maintaining them and deploying them, are beyond the common man.

If we want to move our cause forward, then we need to knock off with the same kind of hyperbole that the pro-gun control crowd uses.

 

[limpingbear]

Yes this one will end up in SCOTUS. What the judge in this court forgot was that the "assault weapons" that the CT law banned are weapons that are in common use. so this one will end up o their desk eventually.

 

[moewadle]

Chief, you missed the point

We are ruled by laws and the courts are the interpreters of the laws and the constitution. So, the 2nd amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Thus, some one or some group has to define what that means and define what the word "arms" means.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Oh, I'm not missing the point at all. I very much understand what the Second Amendment says and I very much disagree with what CT is doing and I hope they get their keisters handed to them in the courts for it.

But using hyperbole like nuclear weapons ain't gonna cut it. Entire nations have enough problems with establishing a nuclear weapons program on a multitude of levels, and the product is very much a result of a very costly national expenditure. For that reason alone, this means that nuclear weapons are not weapons intended for individuals and is therefore not an individual "right". This doesn't even begin to encompass the various other aspects involved in maintaining, deploying, and actually using them.

You might just as well scream "I want a starship armed with Nova Bombs" for all the credulity this kind of claim renders.

And, while I do agree that where the line has been drawn legally with respect to other weapons (such as machine guns, and even some explosive devices), I'll never be on the bandwagon that extends this definition of "arms" covered under the Second Amendment to cover such examples as nuclear weapons.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It seems clear the judge is applying intermediate, or maybe heightened scrutiny as the level of judicial review appropriate to the 2A. Obviously, I disagree with that, but I'm not optimistic for how that will play out on appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

 

[PabloJ]

It seems clear the judge is applying intermediate, or maybe heightened scrutiny as the level of judicial review appropriate to the 2A. Obviously, I disagree with that, but I'm not optimistic for how that will play out on appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

I would not be optimistic either. Most highly educated people in USA holding positions at state and federal government levels have ZERO common sense.

 

[Devonai]

Can't we just use the proper definition of "small arms" and leave it at that?

This ruling is disappointing, so let's hope it goes to SCOTUS.

 

[Elkins45]

why are nuclear weapons often referred to as NUCLEAR ARMS? They are in fact arms. Arms are not just guns and knives.

Scalia has been quoted as taking the word "bear" literally, meaning he feels the 2A protects only arms that can be carried by hand.

 

[Armymutt]

I have no issues with someone having nuclear weapons. It's a completely pointless argument. If Iran can't get them, how is anyone in the US going to get them? Iran is far less constrained by law - i.e. they can steal them or import them from another country. Please show me where any American can import nuclear weapons. Even the USG has to make their own. Even if you managed to get your hands on one, how would you use it? You would have to use it in a safe manner. It would obviously be considered a destructive device, thus requiring a background check, pictures, form 4, $200 tax stamp, and a CLEO sign off unless you had a trust. I don't know of anyone who owns enough land and has enough money to set up their own nuclear reactor, buy the material, and build one.

A howitzer on the other hand is completely legal to own, as are the rounds - each with the above NFA requirements. Again, the problem comes in with actually acquiring the items necessary to operate it.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I would not be optimistic either. Most highly educated people in USA holding positions at state and federal government levels have ZERO common sense.

It has nothing to do with the tired culture war observation above. And if that's the perspective you bring to this, prepare to be disappointed indefinitely.

Until now, the judiciary has been loathe to explicitly apply a level of judicial scrutiny to the 2A. Scalia very pointedly refused to in his Heller opinion.

We now have a federal judge making such a call and, at best, his call is for intermediate scrutiny.

Hopefully, this decision will get appealed as far as possible/necessary, but I can't say I expect, should it reach the SCOTUS, that those judges will appreciate being forced to make a determination on the appropriate level of judicial review by district judge.

 

[KimberUltra]

I'm not holding my breath. Connecticut is already lost we should put our effort into preventing more states from falling.

 

[Hawk 3/21]

Think about a flip side of this for a minute. By him ruling the way he did, admitting what he admitted, this opens the door for SCOTUS to rule once and for all on the matter and be done with it.

Good luck with that....lifetime appointments