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 ...
Screw him and the lying horse he road in on. I hope this is appealed to the SCOTUS.
Infringe, infringe, I know what that word means.
Burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights = shall not be infringed.
Abortion at any time for any reason is Constitutionally protected and cannot be touched...
Don’t try that in Texas woman.
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”
many in govt can’t handle the fact they have only limited power.
Facts not proven.
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.
By “Federal judge” they mean a Bill of Rights-hating, leftwing commie lib activist, right?
Uh, which Amendment is that? Is that found next to the "right" to abortion in the Constitution?
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.
We had a federal assault weapons ban for 10 years that basically did nothing to reduce crime. So how does the judge explain that?
How can such legislation possibly be constitutional?! Not only infringe upon, but to "burden"?
“Covello was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by President George H.W. Bush on April 1”
Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse this decision.
so much for the NRA standing up for their rights...
infringe???
Ith that the thtuff on the hem of my thkirt?
Never mind that the empirical evidence is fewer guns, more crime.
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.