CT News Junkie | Gun Advocates Try To Speed Up Case Against State

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Gun Advocates Try To Speed Up Case Against State

by | Aug 30, 2013 10:54am
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Civil Liberties, Legal, Public Safety, Newtown

CTNJ File Photo

Two gun rights groups and a handful of other plaintiffs have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the state’s new gun control regulations unconstitutional in an attempt to bypass a trial on their lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in May in response to legislation the governor signed in April. The legislature passed new firearm regulations on a bipartisan basis in response to the December murders of 20 children and six educators at a Newtown elementary school.

A lawyer for the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen and the Connecticut Citizens Defense League made the complaint on behalf of eight other plaintiffs, including individual citizens and stores that sell firearms.

In a motion for summary judgment filed last week in federal court, the group asked a judge to decide the case in their favor before discovery or a trial. The lengthy document cites more than 100 “undisputed material facts,” which the plaintiffs say prove the regulations are unconstitutional. The motion also requests an immediate injunction on the law’s enforcement.

The points range from gun violence statistics to assertions on the suitability of now-banned weapons for self defense purposes and the impact the plaintiffs say the law will have on gun owners. Other points suggest that the law’s prohibition on new magazines carrying more than 10 rounds will make it more difficult for gun owners to defend themselves by forcing them to reload more frequently.

“Where a crime victim faces multiple adversaries, the ability and need to fire many rounds without reloading is obvious,” the motion reads.

The filing also asks the court to expedite oral argument in the case.

“This is a classic case of ‘an Alice-in-Wonderland world where words have no meaning,’” the memo reads. “. . . Connecticut’s fundamental premise in passing [the law] is that any firearm it wishes to ban loses Second Amendment protection as long as its demeaned an ‘assault weapon.’”

The Attorney General’s Office is defending the legislation in court. A spokesperson for Attorney General George Jepsen said Friday that the office’s response to the motion is due next month.

“We look forward to responding to the motion in court at the appropriate time. Based on the schedule set by the court, our response is due Sept. 20,” she wrote in an email.

Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, said the administration knew the law would be challenged by groups opposed to it, but they are confident it will be upheld. Legal attempts to challenge similar efforts to regulate guns in Connecticut have failed.

“We believe the bill improves public safety, and we will work with the Attorney General’s office to defend it. Let’s not forget that this has happened before. In prior instances where Connecticut has passed common-sense restrictions on firearms, there have been challenges. They have all been unsuccessful,” Doba said in a statement.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(4) Archived Comments

posted by: Mopar | August 30, 2013  3:28pm

Mopar

Jepsen and Malloy mention a previous challenge has failed. What THEY fail to mention is the last challenge was a poorly funded state level challenge back in 1994.
Back then there was no social media, many people didnt even have email. It was much harder to organize and raise support or funds back then. Also since then, the Supreme Court has handed down the Miller and McDonald decisions. One key part of the Heller decision rejected DC’s handgun ban because it constituted a prohibition on an entire class of firearms that is in common use.
CT’s new law similarly bans an entire class of firearms, the AR-15 type rifles, which are the single most common rifle in America today. Since the Supreme Court has already found such a ban unconstitutional in Heller, and upheld that decision again in Miller, it’s going to be far harder to defend this ban then it was back in 1994. Also, instead of a few thousand dollars in defense funds, CCDL and other CT gun owners are prepared to spend millions this time around.

posted by: dano860 | September 2, 2013  6:58am

The money will be needed as the courts will drag this one out.
The sad part of all this ‘knee jerk legislation’ is that it won’t prevent another Newtown or stop the gang bangers from popping each other off. They have managed to confuse the law abiding citizen with their feeble attempts to ban firearms though.
The Feds now stating that they won’t chase after the low level weed dealers will only add to the inner city drug and turf problem. Expect more shootings and problems to come from the uneducated, non social capable thugs and children of the broken family side of life. It isn’t a firearm problem, a magazine capacity problem or law abiding citizen problem. It isn’t an education problem either, we pour millions of dollars into the cities only for the teachers to get raises.
Next they need to reduce the “no dealing” area around schools so that there is more turf and keep the prisons from becoming over crowded.

posted by: archer | September 2, 2013  11:01am

Registration begins 1/14. Hopefully we will hear something from the courts to relieve the pressure well in advance.

posted by: Ka1oxd | September 7, 2013  3:38pm

As a citizen of this state, King Danny Boy Malloy has violated his Constitutional duties of his oath.  Malloy and Jepsen are now going to try and defend an unconstitutional law.  This new law is going to cost the residents of this state over $25 million to implement and does not do one thing to prevent the true problem of crime.  What part of “shall not be infringed” does this governor not understand? In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a 1958 ruling (US v Miller) that the government cannot ban weapons of common use of the times. This as well as other initiatives that Malloy has defined this state by having done nothing to increase jobs and ease the high tax burden that they have put on the citizens.  Our state is now rated the worse in the country to live in, his actions have our state credit rating dropped, and all for what?  Now they are going to spend millions in defending a law that will be determined unconstitutional?  Malloy and other have violated their oath to defend the Constitution.  It is time that they are removed from office.  If it is determined that the law is unconstitutional, both of these gentleman and all the legislators who voted for this law should step down.