Court upholds constitutionality of Conn. gun-control law. Thank you Jesus/Obama

[Papageorgio]

If they'd just pass a law to banish violent criminals to prison, it would solve most of our problems.

Are you for real?

I was wondering the same thing about you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

'Assault weapons' are in common use for any number of traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a gun.
'Assault weapons' are, at most, <25% as likely to be used in a murder than klives or other bladed weaponns.
Thus:
No way this is upheld by the SCotUS - the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to own/use these weapons and there is no rational basis for banning them.

 

[Contumacious]

It seems the NRA agenda is all you care about... dead children are of no consequences to you and your kind.

It seems the socialist disarm-them agenda is all you care about....


dead children because of GUN FREE ZONES are of no consequences to you and your kind.

.

Gun free zones make people shoot people do they? Oh that's a good one.

Do you think that Adam Lanza would have chosen Sandy Hook Elementary School if he knew that someone there was going to shoot back?

Do you think that the 09/11 hijackers would have perpetrated their criminality if they knew that Americans could still carry firearms on board?!?!?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault Weapons are not protected, SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

Your statement, above, is a lie, as you know the SCotUS has ruled no such thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Thank you President Obama indeed! Is this country great, or what? God Bless America!




Court upholds constitutionality of Conn. gun-control law | MSNBC

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.

Judges in Hartford on Thursday defended the constitutionality of the law, which they said balances Second Amendment gun rights and the Obama administration’s call to reduce violence. 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.

How very sad.

More freedoms lost due to politics.


Did the supreme court tell us how to get these scary guns away form criminals?

Under democracy your freedoms are always up for a vote. If some sleazy politician can get elected by selling your rights to the highest bidder, then they are gone.

It's a noble form of government. Don't you agree?

 

[Wildman]

ASSAULT WEAPONS..., ASSAULT WEAPONS..., ASSAULT WEAPONS..., ASSAULT WEAPONS !!!!

that is all i have seen and read about in this thread, i doubt there are more than 7 to 10 of us patriots here who know what an ASSAULT WEAPON is !! one thing for certain is that there is NOT one fucking libertard here who knows what an ASSAULT WEAPON IS !!

The Truth About Assault Weapons<---------<<<< CLick here

the most difficult question there is to answer is: HOW DO WE EDUCATE A LIBERAL ABOUT GUNS, THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND, ASSAULT WEAPONS ??

liberals: are you really this stupid or just acting like this towards the Second Amdt. and ASSAULT WEAPONS ? please read this and become as intelligent as I

The Truth About Assault Weapons<---------<<<< CLICK HERE

 

[hazlnut]

'Assault weapons' are in common use for any number of traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a gun.
'Assault weapons' are, at most, <25% as likely to be used in a murder than klives or other bladed weaponns.
Thus:
No way this is upheld by the SCotUS - the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to own/use these weapons and there is no rational basis for banning them.

It's over and done with, son.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Assault Weapon Ban


Sorry.

 

[hazlnut]

Assault Weapons are not protected, SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

Your statement, above, is a lie, as you know the SCotUS has ruled no such thing.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Assault Weapon Ban

 

[Contumacious]

ASSAULT WEAPONS..., ASSAULT WEAPONS..., ASSAULT WEAPONS..., ASSAULT WEAPONS !!!!

that is all i have seen and read about in this thread, i doubt there are more than 7 to 10 of us patriots here who know what an ASSAULT WEAPON is !! one thing for certain is that there is NOT one fucking libertard here who knows what an ASSAULT WEAPON IS !!

The Truth About Assault Weapons<---------<<<< CLick here

the most difficult question there is to answer is: HOW DO WE EDUCATE A LIBERAL ABOUT GUNS, THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND, ASSAULT WEAPONS ??

liberals: are you really this stupid or just acting like this towards the Second Amdt. and ASSAULT WEAPONS ? please read this and become as intelligent as I

The Truth About Assault Weapons<---------<<<< CLICK HERE

The Let's disarm them caucus will soon rule that sling shots are assault weapons.

.

 

[Contumacious]

'Assault weapons' are in common use for any number of traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a gun.
'Assault weapons' are, at most, <25% as likely to be used in a murder than klives or other bladed weaponns.
Thus:
No way this is upheld by the SCotUS - the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to own/use these weapons and there is no rational basis for banning them.

It's over and done with, son.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Assault Weapon Ban


Sorry.

Excuse me fucktard, the SCOTUS also ruled that Americans do not have a right to smoke pot , snort cocaine or mainline heroin.

Do you know one single US jurisdiction which is free of those substances?

.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's especially instructive to note what this judge wrote in his ruling:

&#8220;The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs&#8217; Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control&#8221;

In case you wondered, "burdens" is pretty much a synonym for "infringes".

And the way that the CT so-called "assault weapons" ban is related to safety, is that if it is upheld, public safety is decreased. Criminals won't obey the new law (hello, that's why they're called "criminals"). Only law-abiding people will be disarmed by it.

 

[Contumacious]

It's especially instructive to note what this judge wrote in his ruling:

“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control”

In case you wondered, "burdens" is pretty much a synonym for "infringes".

And the way that the CT so-called "assault weapons" ban is related to safety, is that if it is upheld, publick safety is decreased.

Back in the mid 1980's Barbara Walters interviewed Fidel Castro. He was always able to rationalize the reasons for depriving Cubans of their freedoms.

.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Courts don't kill little kids... a kid who listens to the Rush Limbaugh Show (Adam Lanza) and whose own mother taught him how to shoot straight with a gun is who killed those innocent children. Okay?

How cute. Now had there been armed teachers/resource officers in that school, do you think we'd be talking about 26 dead kids right now?

Now all we have to worry about is an armed teacher who has a bad day. Sheesh!

You don't trust teachers with guns but do trust them with kids? What does that say about your view of kids?

 

[The Rabbi]

Those little kids who died in Newtown thank our courts for ensuring that more massacres like that one will happen again.

One of the most stupid remarks I've read. How do you figure the result of this law will result in more five and six year old children being slaughtered in mass? Do you hope that happens, or do you assume a gun lover angry will kill children because he feel that his 2nd A. rights have been infringed?

SO you think the ban will stop more incidents like this? You're a special kind of stupid.

 

[bayoubill]

Thank you President Obama indeed! Is this country great, or what? God Bless America!




Court upholds constitutionality of Conn. gun-control law | MSNBC

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.

Judges in Hartford on Thursday defended the constitutionality of the law, which they said balances Second Amendment gun rights and the Obama administration’s call to reduce violence. 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.

just goes to show that the folks in the black robes, the so-called last line of defense for us citizens and our basic constitutional rights, can unfortunately have their heads wedged solidly up their asses just as much as the rest of us...

 

[Abatis]

Great!!

Assault Weapons are not protected, SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

Are you interested in learning why you are wrong or would you rather persist in your profound ignorance?

Here's what Supreme Court Justice Scalia said in the Heller decision:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller&#8217;s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those &#8220;in common use at the time&#8221; finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.



I guess Scalia is a Socialist/Communist.

That, you're in for a rude awaking when more states ban assault weapons and courts uphold the bans.

What is the rest of the story?

In addition to "in common use at the time", what are the OTHER criteria established by SCOTUS to determine if a type of arm enjoys 2nd Amendment protection which means that the claim of government to exercise power over the simple possession and use of said arm is repelled / invalidated? (which were ignored by the CT District Court)

Hint, it is also established by Miller, it is recognized in Heller and it unequivocally includes the type of arms known in layman's terms as "assault weapons" . . .

As much as you refuse to accept it, if there is one type of arm that meets all protection criteria which demands that nearly all claims of government to possess power to restrict the possession and use by law-abiding citizens is repelled / invalidated, that would be the type given the moniker of "assault weapon".

 

[Abatis]

Under democracy your freedoms are always up for a vote. If some sleazy politician can get elected by selling your rights to the highest bidder, then they are gone.

It's a noble form of government. Don't you agree?

Which is why the founders / framers rejected "democracy" as the form of government to be established by the Constitution.

This distinction is recognized by SCOTUS and is a fundamental principle of the rights theory embraced by the founders / framers and enforced by SCOTUS:


.

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
​

.

 

[Abatis]

It's over and done with, son.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Assault Weapon Ban


Sorry.

Sweet merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow unicorn do you have any clue what you are talking about?

To claim that a denial of cert in 2001 has any precedential value in a post Heller / McDonald 2014 is the height of loopy lefty denial / wishful thinking . . .

I would welcome any explanation /defense you could muster . . . I beg you, please try . . .

 

[Darkwind]

It seems the NRA agenda is all you care about... dead children are of no consequences to you and your kind.

It seems the socialist disarm-them agenda is all you care about....


dead children because of GUN FREE ZONES are of no consequences to you and your kind.

.

Gun free zones make people shoot people do they? Oh that's a good one.

Nice try. Make them shoot people? No. Prevents them from shooting people who would shoot children.

This court ruling will be overturned upon appeal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wait a damned second. The judge says it's constitutional because it balances "the Obama administration’s call to reduce violence." What kind of bullshit reasoning is that?

Perhaps if you had taken the time to review the ruling, you’d understand the context in which the ruling was made.

Federal judges do not make decisions in a vacuum, they follow existing case law, and this ruling is consistent with that case law, however much we may disagree with it:

Unlike the law struck down in Heller, the legislation here does not amount to a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home. Indeed, the legislation does not prohibit possession of the weapon cited as the “quintessential self-defense weapon” in Heller, i.e., the handgun. In other words, “the prohibition of [assault weapons] and large-capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves.” Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1262. The challenged legislation provides alternate access to similar firearms and does not categorically ban a universally recognized45 class of firearms.46

Here, as in Heller II, the court is “reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden” upon the core right47 protected by the Second Amendment. Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1262. Thus, the court concludes that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard in this case. 48

PDF: Judge Covello's Decision - Courant.com

Because the law was subject to an intermediate standard of judicial review, the burden placed on the state to justify its AWB is diminished.

In Heller, the Supreme Court identified a right to self-defense and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to the self-defense right. As with the New York ‘SAFE Act’ recently upheld as Constitutional and this current ruling, the courts have determined that AWBs do not deny an American his right to use a handgun to defend himself, as the challenged statutes afford citizens ample opportunity to secure firearms not prohibited by the legislation.

In essence, current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although as the court noted is ‘still evolving,’ allows the prohibition of all manner of firearms, including those incorrectly identified as ‘assault weapons,’ provided there is not an outright ban of firearms altogether.