Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
WASHINGTON — The leading opponents of Connecticut’s sweeping, post-Newtown gun laws appealed the state’s assault-weapons ban to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing that semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 are widely popular and well-suited to home defense.
Connecticut’s law “infringes upon rights guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitution,’’ said Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League, the lead organization in the case. “Connecticut residents deserve to have these rights restored and protected by the Supreme Court.’’
Going the distance
The Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League and other gun-rights groups say that in rejecting an appeal of Connecticut gun laws, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals misapplied Supreme Court standards.
Now the gun advocates are seeking to have their case heard by the Supreme Court.
Justices of the nation’s highest court will consider the petition and decide whether to hear the case. That decision could come any time up until the court adjourns in late June.
Some legal observers say the CCDL and the other parties, including MD Shooting Sports of Monroe and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen may find the court unreceptive.
In 2008, the court stated the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer the right of individuals to own firearms. But the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s leading conservative, said that Second Amendment rights are “not unlimited.’’
And late last year, the Supreme Court refused to consider a challenge to an assault-weapons ban imposed by the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Ill.
“The Supreme Court is not likely to hear this case,’’ said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written widely on gun law. “This area of law has many open questions, and lower courts look to the Supreme Court for guidance. In the Second Amendment area, that guidance has been absent.’’
Connecticut’s assault-weapons ban was among the slew of laws passed in the wake of the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass-shooting that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adult staff members. The shooter, Adam Lanza, used a Bushmaster version of the AR-15.
The law bans any weapon that has a detachable ammunition magazine and military style characteristics such as a pistol grip, a flash suppressor or a folding stock. It included a grandfather clause that permits weapons owned by individuals prior to the ban.
The term “assault weapon’’ is in itself pejorative and inaccurate, the plaintiff’s lengthy brief states.
“The category of firearms Connecticut bans are united by nothing other than the possession of safety-enhancing features that serve to make them more reliable and better suited to home defense,’’ the brief said. “A ban on these firearms is so irrational that . . . it must fall.’’
The plaintiffs argued that the kind of semiautomatic weapons affected by the ban are rarely used in crimes and, indeed, mass-shootings are themselves rare occurrences.
The Connecticut ban “singles out for special disfavor not a recognized type of firearm, but certain features included on some firearms,’’ the brief states. “That makes Connecticut’s law particularly irrational, since most of the features it bans actually serve to make the firearms on which they are included safer.’’
It argues, “the gerrymandered class of firearms Connecticut has banned includes some of the most popular firearms in America — including the AR-15.’’ And it cites data showing that in 2012, “rifles of the type Connecticut bans made up twenty percent of all retail firearm sales.’’
The New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit last year sided with the state of Connecticut in rejecting the appeal. The CCDL and the other plaintiffs argue in the brief that the 2nd Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s own standards set out by the court in its landmark 2008 opinion.
But they acknowledged that since then, “this Court has remained silent while Second Amendment doctrine has ripened.’’ They argued the Connecticut case is the right one to flesh out the unanswered questions of how far Second Amendment rights go.
Named defendants were Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and a host of state prosecutors including David I. Cohen, retired Stamford state’s attorney; John C. Smriga, Bridgeport state’s attorney, Kevin D. Lawlor, Milford state’s attorney; and Stephen J. Sedensky, III, Danbury state’s attorney.
There was no immediate comment from the governor’s office.
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Gun-rights-group-appeals-ban-to-Supreme-Court-6824841.php