A federal court’s decision this week to uphold Connecticut’s assault weapons ban is an important victory for gun safety advocates, transitioning from a year that ended with almost half of all states strengthening reform laws.
The decision was a "win" for those who champion illegitimate laws sustained on legally schizophrenic reasoning which recognized:
- that " '[c]onstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them' and are not subject to the whims of future legislatures or judges"
- that the question "[w]hether legislation substantially burdens a Second Amendment right is heavily dependent on the firearms in question being in 'common use.' "
- that "The Connecticut legislation here bans firearms in common use."
- that "Additionally, millions of Americans commonly possess firearms that have magazines which hold more than ten cartridges."
- that "The court concludes that the firearms and magazines at issue are “in common use” within the meaning of Heller and, presumably, used for lawful purposes. The legislation here bans the purchase, sale, and possession of assault weapons and LCMs, subject to certain exceptions, which the court concludes more than minimally affect the plaintiffs' ability to acquire and use the firearms, and therefore levies a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights."
So, after recognizing / acknowledging as a point of law that the weapons and magazines meet
one of the criteria of 2nd Amendment protection (while ignoring the others) and that laws levy a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights
AND that laws injuring fundamental rights demand strict scrutiny be applied:
“[A] government practice or statute which restricts „fundamental rights‟ or which contains „suspect classifications‟ is to be subjected to „strict scrutiny‟ and can be justified only if it furthers a compelling government purpose and, even then, only if no less restrictive alternative is available.”
the court ignores SCOTUS' determination that the right to arms for self-defense
IS fundamental and instead goes on a whimsical adventure to look for the missing link to support the invention of a new standard ("draw[ing] reasonable inferences" from the "substantial evidence" of the effectiveness of gun control) to support CT's legislature's interest in creating laws which may or may not achieve the stated object as being paramount to the security and protection of a fundamental right:
"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. As such, the legislation survives intermediate scrutiny and is not unconstitutional with respect to the Second Amendment."
Congratulations on your short-lived "win".
Pro-gun advocates sought repeal and sued the state after Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy signed the historic gun bill into law last April, but the court rejected their argument.
Wrong.
READ THE DAMN CASE (412KB pdf) and stop guzzling the gruel of the biased media accounts (which won't even cite the case name let alone offer a link to the opinion).
This jackass court validated the "pro-gun advocates" arguments.
This court just decided to not follow the path that SCOTUS has set-out to decide the constitutionality of laws challenged as violative of the right to arms as secured by the 2nd Amendment.
