Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Upholds State's Tough Assault Weapons Ban (CT's Whole Anti 2nd Law Upheld)
courant.com ^ | January 30, 2014 | EDMUND H. MAHONY

Posted on 01/30/2014 6:14:50 PM PST by raybbr

HARTFORD — Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

The legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman killed 20 first-grade students and six women with a now-banned AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.

A coalition of gun owners, gun sellers and sports shooting organizations sued in U.S. District Court to block enforcement of the law and overturn it on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued that the state's ban of 138 weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines is vague, discriminates among different categories of gun users and, most significantly, infringes on their Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; alfredcovello; alfredvcovello; banglist; connecticut; gun; guncontrol; policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
Any CT FReepers please check out the Facebook page of Connecticut Citizens Defense League. They are the driving force behind the challenge to the law.
1 posted on 01/30/2014 6:14:50 PM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Screw him and the lying horse he road in on. I hope this is appealed to the SCOTUS.


2 posted on 01/30/2014 6:16:30 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Infringe, infringe, I know what that word means.


3 posted on 01/30/2014 6:18:37 PM PST by vpintheak (Thankful to be God blessed & chosen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights = shall not be infringed.

Abortion at any time for any reason is Constitutionally protected and cannot be touched...


4 posted on 01/30/2014 6:18:55 PM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Don’t try that in Texas woman.


5 posted on 01/30/2014 6:19:44 PM PST by SADMILLIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I love how these Federal Judges keeping finding that my rights are subjected to the whims of Police power. Funny, I didn’t see anything in the Constitution that says “This right void where prohibited”


6 posted on 01/30/2014 6:20:35 PM PST by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClayinVA

many in govt can’t handle the fact they have only limited power.


7 posted on 01/30/2014 6:23:24 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

Facts not proven.

8 posted on 01/30/2014 6:27:13 PM PST by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control

Not a single criminal was burdened by that unconstitutional law.

Only law=abiding citizens had their rights violated.

I guess that we're all criminals now, in the eyes of the corrupt federal government.

9 posted on 01/30/2014 6:27:35 PM PST by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

By “Federal judge” they mean a Bill of Rights-hating, leftwing commie lib activist, right?


10 posted on 01/30/2014 6:29:38 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (ObamaCare. The "global warming" of healthcare plans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

Uh, which Amendment is that? Is that found next to the "right" to abortion in the Constitution?

11 posted on 01/30/2014 6:30:20 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
And like sheep, most Americans will dutifully comply with the Beast.

I now understand how and why it was that Jews in Europe surrendered everything without a fight and then dutifully lined up for death camps and mass graves.

We're living a repeat - even though we're armed, we line up in order to be systematically disarmed while the police are militarized and the government and media declares Conservatives to be a threat to security and the state.

12 posted on 01/30/2014 6:32:58 PM PST by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

We had a federal assault weapons ban for 10 years that basically did nothing to reduce crime. So how does the judge explain that?


13 posted on 01/30/2014 6:34:19 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights . . ."

How can such legislation possibly be constitutional?! Not only infringe upon, but to "burden"?

14 posted on 01/30/2014 6:34:36 PM PST by FoxInSocks ("Hope is not a course of action." -- M. O'Neal, USMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

“Covello was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by President George H.W. Bush on April 1”


15 posted on 01/30/2014 6:34:46 PM PST by outofsalt (If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse this decision.


16 posted on 01/30/2014 6:34:56 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
so much for the NRA standing up for their rights...
17 posted on 01/30/2014 6:35:28 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The judge “canceled oral arguments” for 30 January 2014. Did not rule.
18 posted on 01/30/2014 6:36:33 PM PST by USCG SimTech (Honored to serve since '71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

infringe???

Ith that the thtuff on the hem of my thkirt?


19 posted on 01/30/2014 6:37:55 PM PST by Scrambler Bob ( Concerning bo -- that refers to the president. If I capitalize it, I mean the dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Gun control advocates were buoyed Thursday by a federal court decision in Hartford that upholds Connecticut's toughest-in-the-nation assault weapons ban, calling it a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence.

Never mind that the empirical evidence is fewer guns, more crime.

20 posted on 01/30/2014 6:44:07 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The only way women can "have it all" is if men aren't allowed to have anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: INVAR

bttt


21 posted on 01/30/2014 6:45:26 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Another FedMob judge who can’t read the Constitution.


22 posted on 01/30/2014 6:48:27 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Connecticut (along with New Jersey, New York and Illinois) is one of the "top 10" states that people are leaving. It's probably not entirely because of things like their new gun control laws -- but this sure doesn't help them retain taxpayers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/02/07/the-states-people-are-fleeing-in-2013/

23 posted on 01/30/2014 6:59:43 PM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

A right such as the Second Amendment is INTRINSIC to the human condition.

THEREFORE it cannot be “balanced”by any other factor OR “norm”.

It is a PILLAR of support of human principles.

It stands on its own by right of Natural Right of Preservation and supernatural right from God.

Anything from God cannot be “balanced” by any other thing because it is INTRINSICALLY GOOD>-

Au Contraire, any other norms outside of the Bill of Rights are inferior to the INTRINSIC right to Self-DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNICAL GOVT which is EVIL>

THE GOOD can never be balanced Against Evil.

Evil is the absence of good.

Therefore this ruling is evil in its intents and authorship, as it goes against both Man and God.


24 posted on 01/30/2014 7:06:34 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
the government's interest in reducing gun violence

What a specious argument. We now have enough evidence to show that broad gun liberties, not quite up to what we have via our Bill of Rights in the Constitution, improve "gun" violence rates.

Furthermore, what do you do about a government that sells guns to Mexican drug gangs? What do you do about a government interested in controlling and suppressing speech via targeted IRS tax-harassment? What do you do about a government interested in dictating to its people?

25 posted on 01/30/2014 7:15:50 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Compliance with Tyranny is Treason.

Looks like the Brown Shirts are wearing Black Robes nowadays.


26 posted on 01/30/2014 7:22:01 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

If the government protected the right to bear arms the same way they protected the “right” to an abortion you would see:

1) Guns and gun safety taught in schools
2) Schools would hand out bullets
3) Children as young as 14 could buy guns without their parents knowledge or consent
4) No restrictions on gun sales regardless of mental illness
5) No registrations on gun sales
6) Gun store clerks would tell customers how to violate any gun laws
7) Gun control advocates wouldn’t be allowed to protest within 100’ of gun stores
8) There would be laws against the media publishing the names of gun owners.

More children (people younger than a month old) are killed by abortion than guns.


27 posted on 01/30/2014 7:39:24 PM PST by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Another political hack in a black muumuu insisting that the plain language of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says.


28 posted on 01/30/2014 7:41:35 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Having some small say in who gets to hold the whip doesn't make you any less a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USCG SimTech

So the foregoing information post about his ruling is false. There was no ruling???


29 posted on 01/30/2014 7:50:08 PM PST by Postman (Flies get too litle credit. They know!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_V._Covello

This idiot was appointed by that other idiot Bush I.


30 posted on 01/30/2014 8:05:59 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Are you sure?


31 posted on 01/30/2014 8:06:42 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt

Once more we reminded exactly what of idiots the Bush Klan really are.


32 posted on 01/30/2014 8:10:21 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
From the judge's decision in the linked article: "... a constitutionally valid means of balancing gun rights and the government's interest in reducing gun violence."

From the Heller decision:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

The judge in this case gets an "F" in Constitutional Law.

33 posted on 01/30/2014 8:29:18 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SADMILLIE

??


34 posted on 01/30/2014 8:30:42 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

So Covello is a Harvard creature-—— there’s a surprise.


35 posted on 01/30/2014 8:48:09 PM PST by Rockpile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rockpile

Depressing, isn’t it?


36 posted on 01/30/2014 8:50:48 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Chode

All I know is that the NRA helped rush the NY law into Federal court and the lawyers did a lousy job arguing. Because they rushed this into Fed court, they completely screwed up a couple of cases winding their way through State court which were doing quite well up until Skretny’s ruling.


37 posted on 01/30/2014 8:51:39 PM PST by SirFishalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Postman
Connecticut Citizens Defense League - January 30, 2014

Judge Covello has just issued his decision. Unfortunately, we did not fare well. Judge Covello denied our motion and granted the State’s in its entirety. Not totally unexpected, and we were prepared all along for this possibility. CCDL is in this for the long haul, and you can be sure we will be filing an appeal forthwith.

Here is the decision. [click on this link>>] Decision and Order (pdf)

Source: Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc. Blog

http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/alfred-v-covello/

38 posted on 01/30/2014 8:54:56 PM PST by deks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

It would be a great thing for America to have a Prez Admin with NO Ivy Leaguers.

And the same for the Supreme Court.


39 posted on 01/30/2014 9:10:37 PM PST by Rockpile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: INVAR

Those are chilling photos. Did they apply for guard camp positions as well?


40 posted on 01/30/2014 9:10:48 PM PST by samadams2000 (Someone important make......The Call!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: anyone

For anyone interested [includes quotes from the judge on this case] . . .

Federal judge upholds Sandy Hook gun law

http://ctmirror.org/federal-judge-upholds-sandy-hook-gun-law/


41 posted on 01/30/2014 9:12:00 PM PST by deks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rockpile

They are elitists for the most part - not too many William Buckleys left there.


42 posted on 01/30/2014 9:13:53 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
many in govt can’t handle the fact they have only limited power.

They have unlimited power, they don't have unlimited authority.

We are no better off than an abused wife holding up a restraining order to fend off her attacking husband.

43 posted on 01/30/2014 9:29:38 PM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

>
Alfred Covello


44 posted on 01/30/2014 9:30:30 PM PST by deks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

“government’s interest in reducing gun violence”
No such animal exists. guns are by nature passive. and are completely devoid of human attributes. they are made of wood, metal, plastic. this is result of failing to educate. the judge is a stupid moron.


45 posted on 01/30/2014 9:30:56 PM PST by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Another FedMob judge who can’t read the Constitution.

He can read it, he just isn't constrained by it.

46 posted on 01/30/2014 9:33:06 PM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

This clown makes it up as he goes along.


47 posted on 01/30/2014 9:33:12 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: INVAR

I’ve read a number of stories posted here on FR that an overwhelming majority of people are not registering their firearms and magazines. Hope it’s true.


48 posted on 01/30/2014 9:56:59 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
IOW, government interest isn't constrained by the Constitution. Thanks raybbr.
49 posted on 01/30/2014 10:42:23 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

50 posted on 01/31/2014 1:45:24 AM PST by Neil E. Wright (An OATH is FOREVER OathKeeper III We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson