Connecticut Gun Law ruled legal.

[zulu01]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo

I don't understand how he can say it does burden 2nd amendment rights, but it's justified. He even declares these guns and magazines are protected by the 2nd amendment.

“While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” Covello said in his ruling yesterday.
The judge said the firearms and magazines that the Connecticut law prohibits are in common use elsewhere in the U.S., and as such they are protected under the Second Amendment. At the same time, the law isn’t a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home, according to the ruling.

[BPTactical]

Seems to me this is in direct conflict with Heller.

[hatidua]

Now is the appropriate time to buy whatever you might want, as restrictions will only become more commonplace. We can't buy things now that we could in 1985, and you couldn't buy things in '85 that you could in '33, laws rarely loosen, but they surely will tighten.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Sigh...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Teufelhund]

So this judge is unaware that the Constitution takes precedence over any law imposed by government at any level?

The terms "public safety and crime control" do not appear in the Enumerated Powers, and such inferred "interests" sure as hell do not supersede the Second Amendment.

[mcjhr]

So because other states do it, we can do it too. Joke judge.

I guess this judge is just one more lemming.

[asmo]

“While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” Covello said in his ruling yesterday.
The judge said the firearms and magazines that the Connecticut law prohibits are in common use elsewhere in the U.S., and as such they are protected under the Second Amendment. At the same time, the law isn’t a complete prohibition on firearms for self-defense in the home, according to the ruling.

That will get overturned - as it is impossible to survive what is known as 'Strict Scrutiny', which is required for all Bill of Rights protected rights. The judge instead used Intermediate Scrutiny - which is totally misguided.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

• It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

• The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

• The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Even it it was seen under 'Intermediate Scrutiny' (which it shouldn't as its a Bill of Rights protected right, but that is what the Judge reviewed it under) - it still shouldn't pass muster. As Intermediate Scrutiny requires that the law "furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest". Since the gubment cannot, in any rational way, show that decreasing magazine sizes does anything to reduce crime (by their own reports) - it cannot be successful.

This is just a stalling tactic by the lib judge.

[merl]

Keep this in mind. First NY lost in court, the CT lost, we're next.

(ok, maybe gun owners won a little in NY, 7 is too much)

[Bailey Guns]

That ruling definitely sounds like it's worded for failure on appeal.