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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
1
posted on
01/30/2014 6:14:50 PM PST
by
raybbr
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.)
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!)
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)
To: ZULU
Don’t try that in Texas woman.
5
posted on
01/30/2014 6:19:44 PM PST
by
SADMILLIE
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")
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.)
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)
To: raybbr
it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime controlNot 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")
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.)
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?
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)
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> ---)
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)
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.)
To: raybbr
Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse this decision.
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)
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)
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.)
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.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson