Federal judge bizarrely contends that most firearms can be banned without violating the Second Amendment

Bearing Arms ^ | 8/3/23 | Cam Edwards

[CFW]

Last month, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton tossed out a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s ban on concealed carry in state parks, ruling that the plaintiff in the litigation didn’t have standing to sue because there was no credible threat of him being arrested or prosecuted for violating the ban. That was an exceedingly odd decision, but it kept the ban in place (at least for now), which counts as a win as far as anti-gunners are concerned.

Now Arterton has followed up with another legal doozy, rejecting a preliminary injunction against the state’s newly-expanded ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines by declaring that the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence allows for bans on commonly-owned weapons, and that “only a ban on firearms that are so pervasively used for self-defense that to ban them would ‘infringe,’ or destroy, the right to self-defense” would violate our right to keep and bear arms.

Under Arterton’s interpretation of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen everything from bolt-action hunting rifles to single-barreled shotguns could be banned without calling into question the right to keep and bear arms; presumably leaving only some (but likely not all) handguns protected by the Second Amendment’s language.

[CFW]

From the decision:

"Unlike the broader category of handguns at issue in Heller and Bruen, the record developed here demonstrates that assault weapons and LCMs are suboptimal for self-defense. A set of statutes that bans only a subset of each category of firearms that possess new and dangerous characteristics that make them susceptible to abuse by nonlaw abiding citizens wielding them for unlawful purposes imposes a comparable burden to the regulations on Bowie knives, percussion cap pistols, and other dangerous or concealed weapons, particularly when “there remain more than one thousand firearms that Connecticut residents can purchase for responsible and lawful uses like self-defense, home defense, and other lawful purposes such as hunting and sport shooting.”"

---

This judge is an idiot and should be removed from the bench for such a finding.

[Yo-Yo]

This judge goes directly against the text of the Bruen decision.

Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

[DoughtyOne]

Another affirmative action hire?

[Yo-Yo]

Further from Bruen:

In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

[wardamneagle]

Where do they find these people?

[joshua c]

they are bucking for a promotion

they are letting the gun banners know they

will twist and distort to reach the goal of confiscation

[bk1000]

This will continue until at least one of these liberal activists receives some old fashioned jurisprudence in the parking lot. The people will not be railroaded by black robed tyrants.

[Major Matt Mason]

No, a honky appointed by Clinton.

[PeterPrinciple]

To justify its regulation,

---

There was a law past in the early 90’s that said after the bureaucracy had interpreted the law for application it had to go back to legislature for final approval. Not done, then regulation gone. This was not follow and was the way that Trump got rid of a lot of regulation.

We need Trump in place.

[WarlordBK]

No, but she’s an old hag who’s retiring soon so she’s burning the place down behind her.

[imabadboy99]

And these communist obama judges were probably all confirmed by the senate 99-1

[Sooth2222]

“only a ban on firearms that are so pervasively used for self-defense that to ban them would ‘infringe,’ or destroy, the right to self-defense” would violate our right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment is not there for shooting animals or self defense.

It's there for shooting tyrants.

[ought-six]

She is a Clinton appointee, and will be “retired” on October 15, 2023 when she assumes inactive status. Sher is getting her last leftist and anti-constitutional digs in before she gives up the gavel.

[XRdsRev]

Since when are percussion cap pistols banned or regulated ?? They are not even considered by the Federal government as modern firearms (being pre-1898 technology and therefore antique arms whether they are originals or replicas).

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks...

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks...

[PeterPrinciple]

The Second Amendment is not there for shooting animals or self defense.

It’s there for shooting tyrants.

---

Repeat LOUD and OFTEN............................

[hinckley buzzard]

Yes. Although she is an obvious ideologue she also appears to be genuinely stupid.

[kiryandil]

Voice vote for this Clinton stooge.

[Bonemaker]

We sure have a piss-poor system of jurisprudence.