From the Second Amendment Foundation . . .
The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in federal district court, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Connecticut, and asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.
SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Eddie Grant, Jr., Jennifer Hamilton, and Michael Stiefel. Named as defendants are Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, plus James Rovella, commissioner of the state’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and several other officials. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Conn., Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford, Conn., and Cameron L. Atkinson of New Haven.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” dates back to 1993. The state criminalizes the possession, sale or transfer of such firearms—about 160 guns named in four subsections—even though many of these guns are in common use across the country.
“The ban was previously upheld, but that was before the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen ruling earlier this year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “That landmark decision eliminated the ‘two-part test’ which included an interest-balancing provision that didn’t pass constitutional muster.”
According to the lawsuit, the current ban deprives “responsible citizens of their Second Amendment rights under the guise of providing a panacea for social problems that Connecticut remains unable to solve.”
Gottlieb said there is no historical foundation for such a ban, and the complaint actually details the historical development of firearms including repeating rifles developed and manufactured in Connecticut and elsewhere. The lawsuit also mentions incidents in which modern semiautomatic rifles were used by private citizens to stop violent crimes.
Keep them coming.
Your honor…By all accounts such a law is without doubt Gun Control. And History your honor defines Gun Control in any shape, matter or form as a diabolical agenda rooted in racism and genocide.
On behalf of the defenseless throughout history who endured racism and genocide attributed directly or indirectly to Gun Control your honor The United States of America has been forewarned to never again provide standing for Gun Control. I rest my case.
Oh God these court cases are fun. I have a neighbor that is a member of a political group called The Dallas County drunken Democrats and I love going to their get togethers to have discussions with them. They’re absolutely melting down over the new gun case law.
Sounds like they will be needing more drinks to get through this.
What’s going on in regards to guns is almost beyond their comprehension. I love using their own language against them by calling anti-gun groups hate groups and then point out that under federal law a hate group is any group that advocates for restricting or eliminating a common Civil Right. When they say that no one needs an assault rifle and that they should be banned I asked them if they believe Jews or blacks should have an assault rifle. I then go through the entire list of protected classes in Liberal Minds and make them tell me one by one who should and should not have an assault rifle. When the discussion is over I like to point out that they never mentioned white guys not being allowed to have them and then I give them the list of people that they say shouldn’t have an assault rifle. I also will bring cartridges in my pocket and a loose bullet or two. I do this so I can show them what a typical AR-15 is chambered in versus the rifles I hunt elk with. I’ll usually finish up our conversation by telling them how wonderful it is that we can all agree that Jews, blacks, and muslims shouldn’t have assault rifles. At that point I’m usually called a bigot or a racist; sometimes both.
You’ve fallen into the gun-banners trap by confusing assault RIFLES (fully automatic) with “assault WEAPONS” (only semi-automatic). You’re telling them, incorrectly, that the AR-15 is an assault rifle, when it is not and never has been! Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic, so assault rifles can never be “assault weapons,” because “assault weapons” are only semiautomatic. Asault rifles manufactured since 1986 have already been totally banned nationwide, even though nobody in America has ever been killed by an assault rifle fired by a a civilian.
“Assault weapons,” on the other hand, are semiautomatic, not fully automatic. “Assault weapon” means “semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun that looks scary but only fires one shot at a time,” while assault RIFLE means a fully-automatic rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge.
So they say blacks, jews, and Muslims shouldn’t have them? but whites can? that’s racist as hell because everyone should be able to have them regardless of race, religion, etc wtf.
Bill, if that’s true you are my fucking hero 😍
Stuck in NJ
You overlooked where I mentioned that I deliberately use their language. I lead the conversation and ask about individual groups and when I name each group I ask if they should be prohibited from having an assault weapon. I leave out white guys by never bringing them up and I ask them if there’s anyone else but they never get around to mentioning white guys because they themselves are usually White leftist.
https://youtu.be/lPJhuNg3Id8
After all that, do you ever really change anybodies mind.
Huntmaster
Believe it or not I have changed a few people’s minds so much so that a butch lesbian couple let me host an AR-15 building class at their house for them and their friends. You should have seen the cars that were parked around their house during the party. Jacked up trucks & jeeps, muscle cars, and some Harleys. I’ve pointed out to many of them and they agree that they have more in common with Texas rednecks then they do with these limp-wristed beta men that populate Dallas County’s Democrat Party. I may have had an unfair in with these two women because I built them a swimming pool.
OORAH! let’s put it to these leftist’s !
Unfortunately CT will certainly be one of those states, like NY, that re-writes, re-labels and drags their bans out for an eternity in a war of attrition.
The states that are ignoring the scotus decision are engaged in an insurrection. They are deliberately disobeying the law of the land and are engaged in a conspiracy to deny human and civil rights.
“… the current ban deprives ‘responsible citizens of their Second Amendment rights under the guise of providing a panacea for social problems that Connecticut remains unable to solve.’”
That just might be the best, most succinct, and most pithy way of describing the purported justification of civilian disarmament efforts.
Neat this keeps up I will have another place to shoot normal AR’s besides VT, NH, ME, and PA soon. Now if I could only buy ammo without going for a permission slip.
We need a mag cap law eliminated here in VT
Yeah still can’t believe that managed to go through over there……….is it being followed at all?
Such weapons are commonly in use for exactly WHAT?
Can you define your term ‘such weapons’ subject?
https://youtu.be/lPJhuNg3Id8
Whatever their owners want to use them for.
I use mine to shoot the tires out of oncoming vehicles.
Your in England so I’d shoot for the left hand side.
If you get lucky the blown out tires drags them over in the ditch and they pile it up in a role
over.
The last one I got six Hank Williams cassettes, a pack of Marlboros, a 12 pack of Milwaukee’s Best Lite beer, a rebel flag and just about had his seat belt chewed into when I heard sirens and had to skedaddle.
Funny as hell.
Target shooting, plinking, hunting, pest control and defense of self, family and property. And what ever else law abiding, free people want to use them for.
The cool thing about the US even in NY is that we can because we want to for whatever lawful purpose we can come up with. You should know that over in Ohio with your constitutional carry and stand your ground laws.
They are in common use for “Shooting stuff”.
Albert, first thing that comes to mind is sending redcoats back where they came from.
Lawful recreation shooting.
Those words exactly were written by the police officer on the form when I made my first firearms license application.
Hunting and target shooting primarily. Defense when needed. And yes, they are used for such and according to Charles Lamb is his preferred home defense weapon: https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-ar-15-best-home-defense-gun/
If open to some tactical considerations, that article has some good ones (IIRC, I read it years ago).
Also, lived in Devon as a child for a year. Literally one of my favorite places in the world out of 20 or so countries. Absolutely beautiful.
the SAF is ten times more deserving of your money than the NRA
They do the hard work. Where is the NRA?
At dinner at a rich Restuarant I guess
The NRA comes in riding the tail, then try to take credit for the win!!!
Comments are closed.