Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Recent CA ruling on upholding assault weapon ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Meriden, CT
    Posts
    74

    Recent CA ruling on upholding assault weapon ban

    What are your thoughts on this case in it's relation to the future of the legal challenges of the new laws here in CT? I was honestly shocked at this ruling because I thought for sure when it was legally challenged as being a 2A violation, the court would have ruled that it was mainly because of the "common use" issue. (Granted it's California)....

    Not sure how millions of legal AR owners doesn't qualify an AR as being in common use.

    So, what do people here think that will mean for the CT lawsuit/challenge to the law?

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ca...#axzz2iaKq1Lt6

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    This was the California Court of Appeals. It is meaningless. Trying to challenge that kind of broad issue in state court is never going to be a good idea.

    See: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...n_v_bailey.txt

    We can expect the federal districts to be split as well. Unfriendly districts are certainly not going to rule in a good way to facial challenges.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  3. #3
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    This was the California Court of Appeals. It is meaningless. Trying to challenge that kind of broad issue in state court is never going to be a good idea.

    See: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...n_v_bailey.txt

    We can expect the federal districts to be split as well. Unfriendly districts are certainly not going to rule in a good way to facial challenges.
    Agreed,

    This will have to end up in the Supreme Court. The District it will go through is in SF and they are very liberal.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Even in this state, when they put the word "type" into the description, it limits it to that manaufacturer:

    from Bailey:

    With respect to the third phrase, one of the plaintiffs' own
    experts, engineer Charles Fagg, was able to identify Auto-Ordnance
    Thompson weapons. He also identified many weapons that, in his
    opinion, were "like" such weapons. Indeed, the plaintiffs' claim
    relies on the proposition that the phrase is facially vague not
    because no firearm comes within its core, but because too many
    firearms do. Nonetheless, on cross-examination Fagg himself felt
    sufficiently certain of the characteristics of an "Auto-Ordnance
    Thompson type" firearm that he testified concerning the firing
    capabilities of such a weapon. Moreover, even if we could read the
    phrase "Auto-Ordnance Thompson type" so broadly as to destroy its
    core meaning, we decline to do so. "[W]e read the statute narrowly
    in order to save its constitutionality, rather than broadly in
    order to destroy it." State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. at 805,
    640 A.2d 986. The state correctly points out that, consistent with
    the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase "Auto-Ordnance
    Thompson type" should be interpreted to include only those Auto-
    Ordnance Thompson firearms that share characteristics similar to
    the other weapons listed in section 53-202a. See Scrapchansky v.
    Plainfield, 226 Conn. 446, 455, 627 A.2d 1329 (1993); State v.
    Russell, 218 Conn. 273, 278, 588 A.2d 1376 (1991). Our adoption of
    this interpretive gloss provides a sufficient core of meaning to
    remedy any facial vagueness that might otherwise exist. Cf. State
    v. Indrisano, supra, at 805-806, 640 A.2d 986.


    PA13-3 has: Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type and still has the Thompson one.

    They wanted to cover all AK's but I think that they just limited it to those that Avtomat produced.

    Of course, the other provisions would be looked at...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •