[raybbr]

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.

[ZULU]

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

[vpintheak]

Infringe, infringe, I know what that word means.

[2banana]

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

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

[ClayinVA]

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”

[umgud]

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

Facts not proven.

[Zeppo]

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.

[FlingWingFlyer]

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

[montag813]

"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?

[INVAR]

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.

[smokingfrog]

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

[FoxInSocks]

"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights . . ."

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

[outofsalt]

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

[SeaHawkFan]

Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse this decision.

[Chode]

so much for the NRA standing up for their rights...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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.

[TigersEye]

Another FedMob judge who can’t read the Constitution.

[Sooth2222]

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/

[bunkerhill7]

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.

[1010RD]

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?

[Kickass Conservative]

Compliance with Tyranny is Treason.

Looks like the Brown Shirts are wearing Black Robes nowadays.