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

[Abatis]

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

The "context" of the ruling was to declare that as a matter of public policy, any meaningful limitation upon the government's power to restrict private ownership of firearms was unacceptable.

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:

That sounds great but that's not what happened here . . . Here this court ignored rules that were inconvenient to arriving at their desired holding and ignored the fact that the right to arms for self defense is a fundamental right incorporated against the states

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

On a first reading the entire reasoning above is detestable. Reword the above excerpt and substitute the 1st Amendment's protections. As if a holding that said some books could be banned as long as the people can read other books wouldn't be laughed at and ignored.

This is the sort of BS one gets when courts don't apply the entire protection standard. To accept the NY court's statement that assault weapons are "a
subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense” ignores what the actual protection standard is.

US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:

• In common use at the time by the general citizenry and/or
• that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
• that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the type of arm meets any one or combination of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use must be repelled or invalidated. (The characterization "dangerous and unusual" can only be argued for, AFTER the arm fails all the protection criteria.)

That in Heller, SCOTUS only used one of those criteria to strike down the DC statutes doesn't mean that the other criteria which apply to handguns and other arms, has vanished into the mist of judicial Alzheimer's.

Assault weapons indisputably meet all protection criteria and this judicial opinion sustaining a ban on them is a travesty.

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

Why was intermediate scrutiny the correct level to apply?

Can you offer any other example of a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, declared fundamental by SCOTUS and incorporated against the states, being protected by the application of intermediate scrutiny?

In Heller, the Supreme Court identified a right to self-defense and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to the self-defense right.

Do you really think that SCOTUS held that the right of self defense is conditional on the weapon used?

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.

While ignoring that the protection standard is wider and that "assault weapons" enjoy a more perfect fit with those standards than any other type / class of arms.

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.

We are reliving history.

Just like in 1942 when the 1st and 3rd Circuits ignored and dismissed SCOTUS to create the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations, we have lower federal courts inventing law disconnected from precedent. These recent decisions, like Cases v US and US v Tot were decided for political reasons with no concern for the decision's adherence to the Constitution or alignment with SCOTUS precedent.

And please, edit your signature with a "but" to reflect your above stated positions on the subjective judicial inventions that can be employed to restrict rights.

For you to have that quote as your signature is ludicrous; you must have it there just to mock those tenets in the substance of your posts.

 

[Wildman]

'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.

i hope you can read plain English, plus there are pictures to help you.

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

 

[Wildman]

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.

here is a better one !

The Truth About Assault Weapons

 

[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.

It's over and done with, son.
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Assault Weapon Ban
Sorry.

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[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.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Assault Weapon Ban

As I said - you lied, and you know iit.

 

[Wildman]

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

once more for your continuing education, in reality there is no such thing as an ASSAULT WEAPON

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

You know that this isn't the whole story here.

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,

Which is irelevant, when you tell the whole story.

 

[Geaux4it]

Too bad the courts are wrong. The ban is unconstitutional, period. If you support the ban you are un American and ought to move to a socialist/communist country where you can live your dream.

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’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’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” 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.

You guessed correctly.

Federal scumbags have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO BAN ANY TYPE OF FIREARM. NONE.

The criminals will ignore the ruling and so should freemen.

.

Indeed

-Geaux

 

[SwimExpert]

Those who think that this ruling is a good thing, I have one simple request of you:

Go find a dark alley and offer $50 to whomever you find to beat you in the head five or six times with a baseball bat. When you're done, come back here and tell the rest of us that the bat was not an assault weapon.

 

[Contumacious]

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:

Only someone who is either massively retarded or who is not familiar with the history of the so-called federal "judiciary" would make such a stupid comment.

Look around pal, we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. While the stupid son-of-bitches , who are supposed to be the bulwark of liberty, look the other way.


Examples of "judicial" scumbags succumbing to tyrannical pressure

1860's

Paper money is Constitutional only if redeemable in gold and silver

1935

Paper money is Constitutional EVEN if it is not redeemable in gold and silver

_------------

Harrison narcotic Act of 1914

The purpose of the act is to TAX narcotics

Later on the son-of bitches ruled that the purpose was to control narcotics

Later on cocaine and marihuana are narcotics

.

 

[kidrocks]

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.

"Prevents them from shooting people who would shoot children?"

That statement is pure conjecture my friend... which translates to pure bullshit!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...

Interesting how the power of errant perception overrules the ability to comprehend – or perhaps it’s an inability to comprehend altogether.

My post merely outlined and paraphrased the ruling.

My personal opinion is that the ruling is wrong, but my personal opinion is irrelevant – all that matters are the facts of law.

But for what it’s worth, I ‘believe’ the Heller Court also established a doctrine of ‘in common use’ with regard to the possession of firearms, where the Constitution protects any firearm owned in such numbers to meet that burden, such as AR and AK type semi-automatic rifles.

And given the fact that banning such rifles will in no way contribute to ‘public safety,’ the state has failed to meet its burden to justify the AWB.

Now, those of us who are Second Amendment advocates can either fight with each other over meaningless personal opinion and perception, or develop a legal strategy that the courts will find compelling.

I prefer the latter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...

And another a slave to his errant personal perception that overrules the ability to comprehend.

See post #92

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...

And another a slave to his errant personal perception that overrules the ability to comprehend.

See post #92

 

[M14 Shooter]

...

And another a slave to his errant personal perception that overrules the ability to comprehend.

See post #92

Notin the slightest.
Your statement was in errror, no matter how you would like to spin it.

 

[Contumacious]

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?!?!?

.

.

 

[Pete7469]

Who cares.... get a life troll.

Parents of dead children unnecessarily killed by guns is who cares. Get a heart will ya?

how will another gun law prevent criminals from committing crimes?


get a brain will ya?

He's a bed wetter.

He already has a "brain".

However it has been programmed not to function independently.

Sort of like a muscle car with a governor that prevents it from exceeding 35 MPH.

In other words it's useless.

 

[Pete7469]

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?!?!?

.

Do you think these imbeciles are even capable of thinking?

Surely you know better....

 

[Erand7899]

Deepest sympathy to the friends and family of the innocent victims.

And rich, full contempt to you who use them to further your Marxist agenda.

Mayhap they'll forgive.

Though we can't hope that forgiveness will be held in abeyance when next they vote.

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

If you were really worried about dead children, you would be wanting to ban automobiles, bathtubs and swimming pools. Consequently, you just want to use dead children to further a dumbass liberal agenda.

One dead child is a tragedy. 26 dead children is no greater a tragedy, except to those who believe that numbers somehow matter. People are not groups, they are individuals who die individually, and are mourned individually.

Liberal/socialism is obsessed with numbers, groups, and categories of people. Why? Because their ideology cannot withstand its effects on individuals. The greater good for the greater number sounds fine unless you happen not to be part of the greater number.

 

[kidrocks]

And rich, full contempt to you who use them to further your Marxist agenda.

Mayhap they'll forgive.

Though we can't hope that forgiveness will be held in abeyance when next they vote.

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

If you were really worried about dead children, you would be wanting to ban automobiles, bathtubs and swimming pools. Consequently, you just want to use dead children to further a dumbass liberal agenda.

One dead child is a tragedy. 26 dead children is no greater a tragedy, except to those who believe that numbers somehow matter. People are not groups, they are individuals who die individually, and are mourned individually.

Liberal/socialism is obsessed with numbers, groups, and categories of people. Why? Because their ideology cannot withstand its effects on individuals. The greater good for the greater number sounds fine unless you happen not to be part of the greater number.

Get this through your heads r-wingers... it's not automobiles, bathtubs, nor swimming pools that kill innocent children at school shootings... it's GUNS!

Your worship of 'guns' is all you gun nuts care about mainly. Schools shootings and dead children are belittled by your pathetic comparisons of guns vs automobiles, bathtubs, and swimming pools .

Consequently, r-wingers always use "automobiles, bathtubs, and swimming pools" as a distraction-ploy from guns, being the #1 choice of mass murders in the killing of children at school shootings and also in the accidental shooting deaths of children as you have just now demonstrated.

For that reason alone, you r-wing extremist gun-nuts can be considered "enablers" when it comes to the senseless school shooting deaths of children.